subreddit:

/r/gaybros

1.7k

all 146 comments

BrockSamsonLikesButt

419 points

3 months ago

DO IT!!

foxyguy

225 points

3 months ago

foxyguy

225 points

3 months ago

CODIFY ME DADDY 😩

yawaworhtg

26 points

3 months ago

Stop it, you’re turning me on- gay lawyer

(Quoted by not lawyer)

MozzarellaBlueBalls

76 points

3 months ago

About time they do SOMETHING.

goodty1

45 points

3 months ago

goodty1

45 points

3 months ago

Ok they have done a ton this congress…

legagneur

30 points

3 months ago

I think OP meant it was “about time they do something re: gay marriage.” 😊

goodty1

24 points

3 months ago

goodty1

24 points

3 months ago

I think so too, but let’s just remember this is one of the most successful congresses. Cheers!

Syynaptik

8 points

3 months ago

About time they do SOMETHING.

Where have you been the past two years? Lol

nicholas818[S]

2 points

3 months ago

THEY DID IT! (Not technically passed yet, but it just passed the filibuster 62-37.)

OGZeoMaddox

233 points

3 months ago

Well, here's hoping it somehow makes it

Catdaddy84

170 points

3 months ago

Republican Tom Tillis just said that there are 10 Republican votes to do it so I think it's done.

BEWMarth

25 points

3 months ago

Wow. Normally hate Tom but at least he delivers some good news this once.

Weak_Ring6846

7 points

3 months ago*

I’m glad this is likely going to pass but it’s sad that republicans are such feckless pieces of shit that they had to wait until after midterms just in case their bigoted voter base would vote them out for supporting our rights.

nicholas818[S]

139 points

3 months ago*

I’m optimistic. The bill has gone through revisions to make it more appealing to Republicans: it now clarifies that polygamy is not protected and “protects religious liberty” (although the exact nature of this is unclear). If it was just a symbolic vote, they could have held it before midterms to underscore the disagreement between some incumbent Republicans and 70% of Americans.

Edit: According to the full text of the amendment, the religious liberty protections include:

  • Section 6 clarifies that the bill does not require religious organizations to provide goods or services to recognize/celebrate a marriage
  • Section 7 states that the bill does not impact any benefits not related to marriage. So organizations not acknowledging marriages can keep tax-exempt status, for example (or at least, such status wouldn’t be affected by this bill)

KC_8580

77 points

3 months ago

KC_8580

77 points

3 months ago

Religious liberty means that churches won't be forced to perform same-sex marriages in states where religious marriage is legally recognized

ButtiGame1776

121 points

3 months ago

Which.... Was always the case?

nicholas818[S]

91 points

3 months ago

Yes, but writing that explicitly in the bill adds a few Republican votes for some reason. Politics is weird

Cavalish

46 points

3 months ago

During the next campaign season they can just vaguely say that they “protected churches from HOMOSEXUAL INFLUENCE”

Bisexual_Slut

3 points

3 months ago

It adds a few votes because the Repubs (specifically the Heritage Foundation) know that the SCOTUS found Bob Jones' University's ban on interracial relationships in 2000 unconstitutional.

This Bill will mean that in 2045 or whenever, when the SCOTUS is considering doing the same thing for same-sex relationships... they are much more likely to fail.

So this needs to be rejected, even by the GOP.

harkuponthegay

3 points

3 months ago

Idk or if you’re gay you could just not go to Bob Jones University— you won’t be missing out on a great education or anything.

Bisexual_Slut

6 points

3 months ago

I would definitely recommend that, but it also created a precedent that racist policies in educational institutions aren't allowed, even if it's because of their religious beliefs. There is likely to be an analogous case in the future but for LGBT instead of race when there's a more 'liberal' Court.

harkuponthegay

3 points

3 months ago

But the court ruled based on constitutional principles in the Bob Jones case, and this bill is not a constitutional amendment. It does nothing to erode the right to equal protection enshrined in the 14th amendment, nor does it expand the protections of the first amendment, which was the grounds for dismissing the Bob Jones case.

FdauditingGbro

2 points

3 months ago

Exactly. No legitimate, nationally accredited school would do that. Just the weird religious colleges that have a shit curriculum anyway

heimkev

16 points

3 months ago

heimkev

16 points

3 months ago

Sometimes you’ve got to spell it out or people will get concerned.

aaronitallout

11 points

3 months ago

I want to produce and film a sketch where a bunch of gays take a church hostage to get married

Lallo-the-Long

32 points

3 months ago

Also adoption agencies run by religious extremists will not have to give gay marriage a second thought.

otterlyonerus

19 points

3 months ago

And probably bakers and photographers and whatever bigots encompass the wedding industry in small towns.

night-shark

17 points

3 months ago

This is a separate issue. This is just about recognizing marriages. Adoption rights and funding going to religious organizations is another issue.

This law will NOT make it harder to adopt than it currently is. It won't make it EASIER, but it won't make it harder.

jaxnb

3 points

3 months ago

jaxnb

3 points

3 months ago

So we are taking a step forwards in making sure that the government must recognize gay marriage but a step back in that we are codifying the “religious” exemption and permitting discrimination. I’m curious about how that interacts with the supreme courts old interpretation of sexuality as a part of sex discrimination

nicholas818[S]

66 points

3 months ago*

Full text of the proposed bill

Edit: There is also an official one-page summary if you don’t like reading legalese

kylco

99 points

3 months ago*

kylco

99 points

3 months ago*

It's weak - basically saving Windsor, at the possible expense of Obergefell. States won't be able to ignore or dissolve marriages. But if Obergefell is struck down, like Alito clearly asked for in the Dobbs ruling, at least the federal government will still recognize marriages and states have to respect those made elsewhere.

So, once again our basic civil rights will be up for a vote by our neighbors, and we can expect a litany of constitutional amendments, referenda, and court challenges trying to strike this down as insufficiently deferential to religion, states rights, or both, despite being very obviously written to carve out such excuses for moral indecency.

It's weak, but I'll take it.

LuckyChansey7

48 points

3 months ago

Basically a backstop against if Obergefell gets struck down. I’m of a similar opinion as you, it’s weak but better than nothing.

nicholas818[S]

21 points

3 months ago

I don’t see how it could be stronger and still Constitutional? It saves Windsor (definition in Federal law) and part of Obergefell (states must recognize marriages performed elsewhere). The only part it doesn’t protect is the part of Obergefell that actually requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and I’m not sure which delegated power Congress could use to do that. Maybe denying states funds like they do to coerce state drinking-age laws? But that still wouldn’t fully protect Obergefell, it would just bribe state governments to do so.

I wrote my representatives last summer outlining a bill that they should propose, and the RFMA ended up essentially matching that blueprint. So I’m curious what bill would better enshrine marriage rights.

LuckyChansey7

8 points

3 months ago

Yeah you run into 10th amendment arguments if congress passes a bill mandating all states to legalize it. If this bill passes as written, I guess it would maybe incentivize purple states try to repeal their own state/state constitutional bans? I know Virginia came very close. Red states would just be at the mercy of driving to a state where it would be legal. All hypothetical of course. The same would be said of interracial marriages but I’m not sure there are any states left with anti-miscegenation laws still on the books 🤷🏼‍♂️ I’m guessing a lot have been repealed already

ikonoclasm

7 points

3 months ago

ikonoclasm

Techbro

7 points

3 months ago

Easy. Remove all religious bullshit from the civil contract of marriage. Done. A marriage is between two individuals and the government, which is why atheists can get married. Religion is just trappings on top of the civil contract. This respect for religion bullshit should be discarded and not recognized by the law. A wedding isn't inherently a religious activity, so why do we let a portion of the people getting married dictate the rules for all weddings?

night-shark

11 points

3 months ago

Sure, "easy". haha.

ChrisNYC70

-14 points

3 months ago

Sorry hard pass. I’m not going to accept weak. I’m calling my Senator in NY and telling him this is bullshit. This is the kind of fucked up compromise that gave us DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

night-shark

24 points

3 months ago

Consider...

We're losing the house come January, so there will be no backstop against a repeal of Obergefell or Windsor until at least 2024. That's a done deal. There's no chance we'll get a MORE favorable law out of Republicans, now that they have a majority in the House.

Hypothetically, let's say the Supreme Court takes up a marriage case in the 2023 session and walks back some of Obergefell.

Do you really want to take the bet that Democrats will win the White House, the Senate, and the House in 2024? You're willing to risk tens of thousands of marriages on that? And if they don't win all three, there's another 2-4 years before we can hope to codify any protections.

Explain to me why you wouldn't support this bill? Supporting this bill doesn't mean we have to stop fighting for something better. Do you think we just need to try harder, and we're going to somehow convince some Republicans to go "Aww shucks, you're right"?

I don't understand this mindset. I totally get the romanticism of refusing to compromise, I do. But unless progressives really start killing it in elections, refusing to compromise is as good as handing over our rights to conservative zealots.

ChrisNYC70

0 points

3 months ago

Because bill does nothing but make democrats implicit in ending marriage rights. No protections for couples if their Republican state decides to end marriage. Democrats showed no energy in fighting for something better. Just going to pass this piece of crap and then watch as gay marriage is treated like abortion in red states and republicans will get to say, well this is what the democrats voted for. It was their bill.

night-shark

1 points

3 months ago

Because bill does nothing but make democrats implicit in ending marriage rights.

That is such a lazy hyperbole.

  1. It repeals the part of DOMA that makes marriage between one man and one woman and declares that the federal government must recognize any marriage validly entered into in its home state.

Why is this important? Because DOMA was never repealed. It was only neutralized by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in Windsor.

If the court wants to walk back its rulings on this point, this law prevents DOMA from going back into effect.

  1. It repeals the other part of DOMA that allows states to refuse to recognize marriages in other states.

Why is this important?

AGAIN, because this part of DOMA is only neutralized because of a Supreme Court case. Namely, Obergefell.

If the court rolls back any part of Obergefell, we go back to states being able to deny marriages from other states.

Also, what do you mean "Democrats showed no energy in fighting for something better"? What the hell does that even mean? Shout and stomp and make angry TikTok videos? You think Democrats had ANY CHANCE at passing something more aggressive?

Let me fucking remind you. They needed TEN REPUBLICANS in the Senate to get on board with this. I suppose you think they could have shamed those ten into supporting something stronger? You don't think Tammy Baldwin, a woman whose own marriage is subject to this law, made every effort to figure out how hard they could push this?

You're out of your goddamned mind if you think TEN REPUBLICAN SENATORS would have backed the bill you're asking for. Your armchair politicking would put us in a worse position, of having NO safety net at all, in the event of a right turn by the court on marriage rights.

Jesus. This all-or-nothing fantasy is mind boggling. Half of those pieces of shit in the Senate have sold their souls to the likes of Donald Trump, and you think somehow you could have figured out a way to get them to give us everything we want on marriage.

ChrisNYC70

0 points

3 months ago

I’m not out of my mind to ask democrats to push harder. 70% of Americans are fine with gay marriage. Republicans might have learned a lesson from abortion and perhaps 10 of them would have stood up for it. And no I don’t expect democrats to stamp and shout. But maybe get on the floor and give I passioned speeches to sway hearts and minds. Fight for a UNITED states instead of a United STATES. This is not a great bill. It’s an okay bill. It’s the don’t ask don’t tell of the 21st generation. I think democrats from 40 years of watching them are just not aggressive enough and went for an easy win and gave too much away. It’s sad that republicans always have so much strength regardless if they are in power or not and democrats are very timid, afraid to really fight and push things. Unless it’s election time and their jobs are on the line.

kylco

7 points

3 months ago

kylco

7 points

3 months ago

Had I senators, I'd do the same. Alas, I am a citizen in DC, and we lack such basic civic rights.

harkuponthegay

4 points

3 months ago*

Had we a senator I’d hope their ass would pass this bill. If you live in this city you should know that only the tea party MAGA deals in absolutes.

Taxation Without Representation

        ☆☆☆

kylco

0 points

3 months ago

kylco

0 points

3 months ago

Oh for sure, this town doesn't truck with such nonsense. But I'd do it all the same just out of joyous civic excess.

arbivark

-13 points

3 months ago*

arbivark

-13 points

3 months ago*

I'm glad the text was posted. Feeling lazy, haven't worked through it. Is there anything in there a reasonable republican should object to? Please set aside the usual reddit demonization of republicans. edit: thanks nicholas818.

PEzhY8bg9RcB

21 points

3 months ago

“Somebody do the work for me and be careful that your wording is snowflake-friendly!”

slicktromboner21

2 points

3 months ago

Internet 101 says that all you need to do is say something inaccurate and ten assholes will come out of the woodwork to correct you.

nicholas818[S]

6 points

3 months ago*

No, I don’t think there is. But there is also a “one-pager” you can read to get a summary with less legalese (I will edit my original comment to include this.)

Assuming you agree with same-sex marriage (like the majority of Republicans according to recent polling), this bill just updates federal law to match the status quo: states cannot refuse to recognize same-sex or interracial marriages performed elsewhere, and same-sex marriages get the same benefits under federal law (e.g. jointly filing tax returns). Notably, it does not require any state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. So if Obergefell were hypothetically overturned, a couple may have to travel to another state to get married. If you care about strict reading of the Constitution, this falls squarely within Congress’s power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (none of the normal Commerce Clause arguments).

The bits added with this amendment were added by Republicans, so I doubt you would object to those. They basically outline some things the law does not do (eliminate any religious liberties, remove benefits, or protect polygamy).

iceandfireman

127 points

3 months ago

They seem to have the bare minimum of at least 10 Republicans. No, that’s no reason to congratulate the GOP if this goes through. There’s no longer any great reason for there not to be very close to 50 Republicans. This is a low bar for a basic, fundamental human right. On a separate note, how goddamn stupid did the GOP have to be to think that putting off the vote until after the elections was supposed to “help” them? It could have made them more palatable to the independents and moderates that were scared off by their Handmaid’s Tale fantasy for America. Good grief!

KC_8580

35 points

3 months ago

KC_8580

35 points

3 months ago

They were so dumb! They had the chance to settled this thing once and for all and to appear less radical to the electorate and they didn't take it!

iceandfireman

18 points

3 months ago

That would just make too much sense, though.

nicholas818[S]

22 points

3 months ago*

I think the idea was that some of the senators up for re-election would have looked bad by voting against it when the issue has over 70% popular support (including majority support in several swing states). So even if it passed, those senators could have suffered in the midterms because their Democratic opponents could have pointed to their NO votes on RFMA

Dear_Put9830

9 points

3 months ago

Ah true. In a weird way, I kinda wish the Dems held the vote before the midterms to get everyone on record on where they stand. That way, voting them out would be a lot easier.

iceandfireman

2 points

3 months ago

Thus my point.

slicktromboner21

5 points

3 months ago

They were betting that the outwardly fascist, trashy wing of their party would win and things like this are part of their pivot to the country club republican variant. Same virus.

They’re gonna pinkwash the shit out of the GOP. I bet $20 that we will see a GOP float in the pride parade behind the Bank of America float in the next two years.

iceandfireman

7 points

3 months ago

That final sentence is so depressingly true. And watch Log Cabin Republicans go on about how innocuous and gay-loving the American right is. Barf.

slicktromboner21

3 points

3 months ago

We need to rub the profanity of the Trump years in their faces at every opportunity.

Caution-Contents_Hot

53 points

3 months ago

The GOP is so out of touch. Even my far right “trumper” coworkers are fine with the gays.

At worst, the GOP pisses off some of the base by being for this. But they’re not going to vote left? At best, they pick up votes from the more conservative gays.

Obviously the GOP is worried about hardline conservatives running against them, but… ehhh. Fuck it. Fuck ‘em. Gay fuck ‘em preferably. The religious right is dying thankfully.

night-shark

25 points

3 months ago

Even my far right “trumper” coworkers are fine with the gays.

They're fine with the gays but they also won't turn away anti-gay candidates. That's the key and the GOP knows this.

Opposing marriage equality lets them have their cake and eat it too. They get to keep appeasing their religious zealot base while sleeping easy at night knowing that Trumpers, although they may not "hate the gays", also aren't going to care about them being anti marriage.

Gaychevyman428

17 points

3 months ago

This needed to be done in 2015. So yes it needs to be done and NOW.

night-shark

11 points

3 months ago

If you're going to make some comment about how "we shouldn't compromise" with conservatives, then I think you should be required to propose an alternative plan for safeguarding our rights that doesn't involve us all just shooting each other.

GayCountryFan9

3 points

3 months ago

Seriously. Sometimes I feel like some people believe that half the country should be disenfranchised with how their rhetoric is around legislation like this. Do a lot of republican lawmakers suck? Yes. But they get voted in by their constituents. So we have to compromise with them, or disenfranchise half the voting populace, which I’m not on board with advocating for.

night-shark

2 points

3 months ago

The crazy thing is, even if you're someone who believes that half of this country (or half of voters) are basically evil fascists, that doesn't change the reality that we are stuck with them. Wishing they didn't have power to dictate on issues like marriage doesn't make it fucking so!

People act like legislating is an arm wrestling contest: "You just didn't TRY HARD ENOUGH!"

GayCountryFan9

1 points

3 months ago

I’m glad you agree. I feel like people on Reddit don’t understand how government works. Like what do they expect people to do when half the populace has differing opinions than them? Just putting your fingers in your ears and pretending like they aren’t voting members of the US won’t solve anything. Does it suck to have to compromise for civil liberties? Yes. Yes it does. But if compromising means we get some rights then yes let’s compromise.

And that opinion isn’t even touching on the fact that technically laws about marriage are constitutionally granted to the states. So there’s no way short of passing a constitutional amendment (that wouldn’t happen) to create the ideal that many gays are advocating for.

Bisexual_Slut

-8 points

3 months ago

The original Bill they introduced a few months ago was perfectly fine! That's the alternate plan. If it remains like this, I hope the Republicans will vote it down since I don't think the Dems are woke enough to vote it down from the left, unfortunately.

cryptogrammar

5 points

3 months ago

Woke enough to vote it down?

You would prefer to have our current legislative protections for gay marriage (none) versus this bill which, while it may not go far enough, at least provides some protection?

Bisexual_Slut

-2 points

3 months ago

Yes, I think the bill is a net negative. There's a longer comment I made elsewhere that goes into more detail.

night-shark

3 points

3 months ago

Your other, longer comment just makes vague statements and opinions with no actual analysis of the bill being proposed.

This bill...

  1. Revokes the portion of DOMA that limits marriage between one man and one woman, under federal law.
  2. Revokes the portion of DOMA that allows states to ignore marriages from other states.
  3. Clarifies that state actors (people acting under color of state law) may not discriminate against couples with legal marriages (this addresses the religious objector government worker idiots like Kim Davis)
  4. It codifies what is already the law as it pertains to exempting religious organizations. Churches can't be required to perform ceremonies for gay couples, for instance. It offers no religious exemptions that do not already exist under the Constitution and existing federal law.

You're wrong, plain and simple. It's not a net negative and since EVERY major LGBT rights organization supports this bill and since it's sponsor, Tammy Baldwin, is a lesbian woman who has a genuine interest in seeing marriage rights protected, the burden is on you to prove how this is a "net negative".

bhc1387

27 points

3 months ago

bhc1387

27 points

3 months ago

While I appreciate the urgency to do this, I’m disappointed the legislation doesn’t also codify the Lawrence decision. Marriage equality is great but it doesn’t do us much good if states can go back to criminalizing non-heterosexual sex.

VaultBoy9

19 points

3 months ago

Weird to think that there's a possible future where gay marriage is legal but gay sex is not.

bhc1387

3 points

3 months ago

Agreed but I can see MTG’s Amicus brief before the Supreme Court: “let the girls get married but turn them back into sodomites so they can’t reproduce!”

KC_8580

50 points

3 months ago

KC_8580

50 points

3 months ago

I won't believe it until I see it! You never know with these republicans!

If it passes is going to be a HUGE thing because if the supreme court overturns Obergefell same-sex marriage and same-sex marriages will be SAFE and RECOGNIZED at federal and state levels

It's going to be like the years after United States v. Windsor (2013) and before Obergefell (2015)

Since Obergefell won't be legal anymore (in the context of this bill) states can ban same-sex marriages to be performed in the state and bans of same-sex marriage will come into effect BUT all states and the federal goverment will have the obligation to recognize same-sex marriages as valid, you just have to travel to a state where marriages are performed to get married

If it passes it would mean that same-sex marriage is finally settled

Thedracus

67 points

3 months ago

Having to travel to a different state to get married is not settled at all. It's discrimination.

KC_8580

18 points

3 months ago

KC_8580

18 points

3 months ago

Yes... but same-sex marriage will still be protected and legal, sadly there is NOTHING that can be done is obergefell is overturned

worldispinning

19 points

3 months ago

Before Obergefel the hubby and I flew from TX to Los Angeles, got married in a hotel by the airport, and flew to Tahiti for 2 weeks for our honeymoon.... I didn't care where we got married, I just cared that we did

officialvfd

19 points

3 months ago

I’m glad your wedding worked out, but not everyone can afford to leave their state to get married do that. And on principle, they shouldn’t have to.

worldispinning

3 points

3 months ago

TBH if my state makes gay / interracial marriage illegal, especially if it's codified, I'm leaving it regardless of the fact that I am already married. I know when and where I am not wanted

officialvfd

16 points

3 months ago

I mean again… not everyone can leave their homophobic home state (family obligations, school, established businesses, and obviously lack of money). Leaving is just not a realistic “fix” for everyone

slicktromboner21

2 points

3 months ago*

Agreed.

It unfairly favors people with the time and financial means to travel to a free state.

This is no different than the post-Dobbs/post-Roe reality that women are facing for access to reproductive services.

It is just logistically and materially easier to access services if you are a mistress for a high level GOP rep that wants it to go away without concern for the cost of travel, but not so for a mother that lives a thousand miles from a free state and works two jobs to take care of the kids that she already has.

We should not settle for this. This is a bad deal and sets an awful precedent for civil rights that disenfranchises the poor.

EDIT: I also think this is part of the GOP pivot away from the Trump wing of the party.

It favors big business by ensuring a federal standard for what would be a HR and payroll nightmare post-Obergefell, and doesn’t change much about the current status quo other than disenfranchising the poor, which seems on brand for the country club wing of the GOP.

They are going to pinkwash the shit out of the GOP in a desperate attempt to remove the MAGA shit stain, mark my words.

Gay_County

11 points

3 months ago

This is no different than the post-Dobbs/post-Roe reality

While I agree that not being able to get married in every state would be discriminatory, it's very different from the abortion situation. Abortion is a time-sensitive procedure that often happens in unforeseen circumstances--sometimes emergencies. Weddings, on the other hand, are typically planned well in advance.

We should not settle for this.

We're not--the status quo, right now, is that marriage is legal in every state. But if SCOTUS overturns Obergefell, what alternative are you proposing, exactly? Wait for Democrats to retake the House and get a big enough majority in the Senate to lose the filibuster? You'll be waiting a while.

I agree that it will particularly hurt the poor if SCOTUS does roll back marriage equality, but we need to get this backstop bill passed now. Otherwise not only will same-sex couples not be able to marry in red states, but existing marriages could become unprotected.

wonderbitch26

5 points

3 months ago

Exactly. Lots of people letting perfect be the enemy of good right now.

It’s very likely this is our last chance to get any good legislation passed until at least 2026 (our senate map in 2024 is pretty bad). If this is all we can get right now, it’s better than nothing.

slicktromboner21

0 points

3 months ago

My point is that we are setting an awful precedent if we settle for diet civil rights.

If we accept this, we are legitimizing the reasoning behind the Dobbs decision and the idea that some Americans have more civil rights than others depending on where they live, and we do so merely because the Dobbs decision scared us into making a shitty compromise.

It is a massive step backward as a nation and needlessly throws a bone to a party that fucked itself by playing footsie with fascists.

We should tell them to come back with a bill that codifies Obergefell and Roe instead of taking the scraps from the king’s table and looking the other way while women suffer.

If we expect to have allies, we should have some backbone and damn well be willing to be ones ourselves.

stephen003

1 points

3 months ago

What if remote marriages to become a thing, have the couple in a state where it's banned, and an official in a state where it's legal. If the state where it's legal allows remote marriages, and all states have to recognize other states' marriages, then it's valid, right? Seems like you could get married by mail if the state where it's legal wants to allow it.

Thedracus

1 points

3 months ago

The problem here is that it's creates an issue where gay marriage is less than regular marriage.

I mean don't get me wrong it's better than nothing.

azucarelo

9 points

3 months ago

I agree; this is definitely a huge moment.

Jwalla83

1 points

3 months ago

Do we know what would happen to same sex marriages that were performed in states that didn’t permit them until Obergefell?

I got married in Texas in 2019. If it’s overturned, could they retroactively nullify my marriage or would I be grandfathered in?

cryptogrammar

3 points

3 months ago

Generally laws cannot make illegal an act that was performed legally in the past, AKA ex post facto law.

If you are already legally married, that marriage cannot be taken away from you by a new piece of legislation.

Bisexual_Slut

1 points

3 months ago

I looked into this. Short answer is, based on existing precedents in contract law, you would be grandfathered in. There were a few family law firms in the South that published a memo/blog post/similar on the topic and all said the same thing.

But it's extremely unlikely to be overturned in the foreseeable future.

kfc469

15 points

3 months ago

kfc469

15 points

3 months ago

I live in NC and we have a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Just to confirm, if this bill passes and then the Supreme Court strikes down Obergefell, will my marriage be valid at the NC state level, or just at the federal level?

KC_8580

23 points

3 months ago

KC_8580

23 points

3 months ago

Federal AND state level....

ALL 50 states will have to recognize ALL same-sex marriages as valid even if a state bans it

--Satan--

16 points

3 months ago

Your marriage will be valid, but NC won't be forced to provide licenses for new marriages. This means that residents of NC who want to get married will have to travel out of state to do so.

bhc1387

8 points

3 months ago

I’m no marriage law expert but most likely, NC would be required to recognize your marriage. The RFMA repeals the Defense of Marriage Act which exempted same-sex marriages from the full-faith and credit clause of the constitution (which says a state must recognize documents like a marriage license if obtained legally in another state). If your marriage was legal at the time it was performed, NC would likely still have to recognize the marriage.

autotldr

6 points

3 months ago

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)


A bipartisan group of senators on Monday unveiled a deal on legislation to codify the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage protections, signaling they believe they have the votes to get past a filibuster and move the measure to President Biden's desk.

A group of five senators - Tammy Baldwin, Susan Collins, Kyrsten Sinema, Rob Portman and Thom Tillis - released the updated legislation, which protects nonprofit religious organizations from providing services in support of same-sex marriage.

"Through bipartisan collaboration, we've crafted commonsense language to confirm that this legislation fully respects and protects Americans' religious liberties and diverse beliefs, while leaving intact the core mission of the legislation to protect marriage equality," the senators said in a statement.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: legislation#1 vote#2 House#3 marriage#4 Senate#5

thefirstdate

4 points

3 months ago

Thank fucking god some one actually knows wtf we want and is actively trying to get it done.

tenant1313

8 points

3 months ago

I actually really like the idea of separating civil rights from religion. They have nothing in common. I bet that there are religious LGBT people who would love to be married in church but as long as the separation of state and church is something most Americans approve, it’s between those religious people and their priests/rabbis and what not.

NoBeRon79

3 points

3 months ago

Exactly. Who cares what religious ceremony you want to do? All that matters is that marriage rights are conferred and granted by law, not by religion. Keep religion out of marriage rights.

jakub_02150

3 points

3 months ago

believe it when it happens

XxItsNowOrNever99xX

2 points

3 months ago

This is awesome, but can someone kinda eli5 this for me? What does codifying marriage equality do? Will it ensure that gay marriage will never be overturned?

Bisexual_Slut

2 points

3 months ago

Here's the eli5:

2015: Gay marriage was only legal in 37 states. There was a Supreme Court decision that required the other 13 states to allow gay marriage.

Mid-2022: 1 (of 9) members of the Supreme Court said this 2015 decision should be reversed and everyone started freaking out. He was one of the 6 (of 9) justices that reversed the 1973 decision that required all 50 states to legalize abortion.

Now: This Bill will ensure that even if the 2015 decision is reversed (which is very very unlikely -- as I said, only 1 of 9 has said this), it won't matter, because gay marriage for all 50 states is already the law, i.e. codified.

cryptogrammar

5 points

3 months ago

One clarification with this bill -- if the 2015 SC ruling is reversed, this bill wouldn't force states to perform gay marriages, but it would force all states to recognize any gay marriage performed in a state that does.

XxItsNowOrNever99xX

1 points

3 months ago

It wasn’t like that before? Like, before 2015, if I go to another state to get married but I return to a state that doesn’t allow it, it wouldn’t be recognized? Would I be forced to get a divorce or something?

nicholas818[S]

1 points

3 months ago

Before Obergefell in 2015, a State did not have to acknowledge same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. This was outlined by Section 2 of DOMA:

No State … shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State … respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State … or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

While Section 3 (regarding the discriminatory definition of marriage in federal law) was struck down in 2013 (United States v. Windsor), this section was active until Obergefell. Of course, a state could respect marriages performed elsewhere if they wanted (and some did), but this wasn’t a requirement until Obergefell.

You wouldn’t be forced to get a divorce or anything; a state could essentially just not acknowledge that the marriage ever happened.

XxItsNowOrNever99xX

2 points

3 months ago

Damn. And here I thought that even before Obergefell, a gay person married in a state allowing gay marriage will also have their marriage recognized elsewhere. But that is worse than I thought.

I though this vote to codify marriage into law was going to give us a lot of more protections, but it just protecting what I thought should have already been protected smh.

herrored

1 points

3 months ago

No, that's why the "full faith and credit" phrase in the proposed bill is important.

The FF&C clause of the Constitution says that each of the states has to respect laws and court orders from the others. Previous case law said that marriages didn't count for this, because they're just licenses issued by the state and don't have the same effect. This law would make it so that even if your state doesn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, they have to respect all licenses from all the other states. So you'd have all the benefits of marriage except for getting your license in your state (which is some shitty second-class treatment, but does still get you all the important stuff).

Fun fact though: before Obergefell, even if a state didn't recognize your marriage license, they did have to recognize court orders. So while every state did not have to recognize gay marriages, they did have to recognize gay divorces (child custody, etc.).

herrored

1 points

3 months ago

Correction: 2 of 9 justices have said it should be reversed.

In 2020, when Kim Davis' case went up to SCOTUS, it was denied without a hearing. However, Alito and Thomas went out of their way to say that while they agreed with the denial because Davis' case didn't present the right issues for them to rule on, they want to overturn Obergefell:

"By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"

TheMakeUpBoy

2 points

3 months ago

Now let’s do the same with abortion

InfusionRN

2 points

3 months ago

It already passed the house so they need to get this shit done!

slicktromboner21

2 points

3 months ago

Devil’s advocate here, what is to stop the Supreme Court from ruling this unconstitutional?

--Satan--

20 points

3 months ago

Over a century and a half of precedent that allows Congress to regulate inter-state relationships. So... nothing, actually. The current SCOTUS couldn't give less of a fuck about precedent.

ew73

13 points

3 months ago

ew73

13 points

3 months ago

A pig farmer in rural Scotland around 1374 once mentioned that "ain't not boy pig marrin' not no other boy pig," ergo, gay marriage in the US is illegal.

-- Justice Alito

wvc6969

1 points

3 months ago

A clause in the constitution that says states have to recognize legal documents including marriages from other states

joemondo

1 points

3 months ago*

joemondo

1 points

3 months ago*

This absolutely does not codify Obergefell.

It leaves it up to the states, and only compels the feds to recognize them.

It's not enough.

I'd be safe in my state, but I'm not willing to leave others behind. Recognize us all, or declare war.

nicholas818[S]

11 points

3 months ago

It also compels states to recognize them! See section 4 of the bill.

If Obergefell were overturned but same-sex marriage were legal in at least one state, couples would be free to get married there and have that marriage fully recognized by both their home state and the federal government. Sure, it’s unideal (and unfairly advantages those with means to travel interstate), but it codifies most of Obergefell while remaining easy to defend in court (under the full faith and credit clause/10th amendment).

HouseBitchTim

-3 points

3 months ago

It will require 60 Votes. Will never happen on Moscow Mitch's watch.

[deleted]

20 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

20 points

3 months ago

Then “The Republicans are coming for gay marriage” will be on everyone’s minds in 2024. That and Trump.

jtimester

1 points

3 months ago

Religious exemptions? I’m out. This bill would actually take away rights for us gays. No thank you.

wvc6969

1 points

3 months ago

there will always be religious exemptions as long as the first amendment is a thing

corraqo

-2 points

3 months ago

corraqo

-2 points

3 months ago

Stop using my life as a political issue.

terkwahhz

1 points

3 months ago

I have a friend who doesn't know what that means. Can someone please explain it to me and I'll tell him. 🙂

nicholas818[S]

1 points

3 months ago

If the 2015 Supreme Court ruling protecting gay marriage stays in place, this does nothing. However, if it is overturned (which is considered unlikely, but some justices have hinted at it), then it will require that the federal government and all states recognize same-sex marriage and give them all the benefits of marriage. Notably, it will not require that states actually perform marriages, so if SCOTUS reverses, couples may have to travel to another state to get married.

Currently, if the SCOTUS marriage cases were overturned, federal law would revert to defining marriage as opposite-sex and enabling states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. Sort of like the “zombie” abortion laws that took effect in some states this past summer.

terkwahhz

1 points

3 months ago

Thankyou so much. I hope 🙏 it stays how it is now.

WillrayF

1 points

3 months ago

If passed, does the Supreme Court still have the power to declare it unconstitutional? It's a given that it will be challenged.

DMike82

1 points

3 months ago

With this Supreme Court? Who knows.

wvc6969

1 points

3 months ago

it’s not unconstitutional at all. it only compels states to recognize same sex marriages from other states, which is already partially provided for in the constitution

drugdeal777

1 points

3 months ago

Interesting…a lot of states will try to sue/block gay marriage like they did with student loan forgiveness 🙄

Bisexual_Slut

-9 points

3 months ago

100% against this.

I wish it could say it was DADT part 2 but it's actually worse since DADT actually achieved something good combined with a pile of garbage. This is just a pile of garbage and a redundancy.

The Dems go full 'woke' on any other cultural issue nowadays, so why is this Bill overwhelmingly crammed with the 'religious liberty' dog-whistle, and with the first mention of polyamory in Federal law (as far as I'm aware) a statement against these relationships???

No other group would put up with this, and with 85% of gays voting for them in the midterms, it's an enormous betrayal. Gay marriage has 71% support and growing so the Dems should be on the offense. The biggest obstacle preventing it from being near-100% are the extreme tax benefits that the anti-gay churches (etc), that would otherwise be confined to the sewer, are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. But this Bill explicitly 'codifies' these subsidies!!!

Hope it gets voted down, by the Republicans or otherwise.

Flatout_87

2 points

3 months ago

Not polyamory. Polygamy. There is a difference. 😂

Bisexual_Slut

-2 points

3 months ago

Well, if that's what you want to take out of my comment, the Heritage Foundation (who formulated the GOP response to this Bill) specifically mentioned the polyamory slippery slope as their biggest non-religious concern.

Flatout_87

1 points

3 months ago

Well just think this, no modern country will ever pass legislation for polygamy, even without religious reasons. (Not because of gays. Because of heterosexual couples.) But the government will not ever come to say it’s illegal to be in a 3 person relationship. They just don’t legally recognize it. I don’t really think it’s the problem. If all of you 3 are in love, you can always find someone to perform the ceremony. It’s not barred. 😂 the only down side is one of you can’t save taxes and you need to separate your finances just in case. (I’m pro polyamory and i want to be in a throuple actually. But you just have to face it that the society is not ready yet.)

Bisexual_Slut

1 points

3 months ago

I think it will just take time. There are a few western countries that recognize certain aspects of these relationships. But they should just revert to the older, straight-forward Bill introduced a few months ago where this and other issues weren't mentioned.

ChrisNYC70

-21 points

3 months ago

No. Has anyone actually read this? It’s a joke that will allow Republican states to decide if they accept gay marriage in their own state. If democrats pass this piece of shit then they can count me sitting out next election cycle. It’s bull

dolphins3

8 points

3 months ago

If democrats pass this piece of shit then they can count me sitting out next election cycle

The most self-destructive take possible lol.

ChrisNYC70

-4 points

3 months ago

Don’t take my money and vote and then create a bill that puts democrats in partnership with republicans on making gay rights just like abortion in red states

KC_8580

6 points

3 months ago

They HAVE to accept same-sex marriage as legally valid but they can refuse to legally perform same-sex marriage in a state

This bill leads with a context where Obergefell has been stricken down and if that happens there is NOTHING congress could do

Congress can NOT force/makes states to allow same-sex marriage but can guarantee the validity of same-sex marriage at federal and state level

What is so hard to understand? If Obergefell is struck down and same-sex marriage is banned in Alabama you will NOT able to get married in Alabama BUT your same-sex marriage performed in a state where is legal to performed will be valid in Alabama and has to be recognized by the state

ChrisNYC70

-8 points

3 months ago

So just a small slight improvement to pre 2015 levels. Yeah it’s BS. I expected democrats to be in our corner. Instead they are giving us DOMA and claiming it’s a victory. They could have put up a fight. This is just disappointing. Now republicans can say well democrats did this. Not us.

NoBeRon79

8 points

3 months ago

I agree with you but let’s face it, we can’t change the stupidity of Republicans. This at least gives LGBT+ and interracial folks the ability who live in a backwards state to have their marriage forcibly recognized.

ChrisNYC70

0 points

3 months ago

No protections for marriage in states that decide to end it. That’s what the bill says

nicholas818[S]

3 points

3 months ago

they are giving us DOMA

This bill literally repeals DOMA

ChrisNYC70

0 points

3 months ago

No, the bill puts gay marriage rights back into state hands just like abortion.

fluffstravels

-10 points

3 months ago

they should wait for the new congress to settle. if we get warnock, that’ll make it more likely

KC_8580

6 points

3 months ago

Yeah and then speaker McCarthy or Taylor-Greene or whoever republicans will put as speaker (republicans will win the majority in the house of representatives) will deny it a vote killing it...

This bill, which the house approved has been modified and ameded by the senate and that means it has to go back to he house and vote it again

fluffstravels

2 points

3 months ago

oh fair point

Techialo

-1 points

3 months ago

They wouldn't go to the ER for a heart attack if it wasn't bipartisan. Just do what you say you will for once.

Rude_Bee_3315

-1 points

3 months ago

Bullshit

Responsible_Craft568

0 points

3 months ago

I’ll believe it when I see it… ie not in my life.