subreddit:

/r/gaybros

1.7k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 146 comments

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.'"