The Republican party trails the Democratic party by 5 to 10 years in their stance towards social issues. In 2008 Obama campaigned for president against gay marriage. 14 years later such a stance would be political suicide for a Democrat. Now Republicans support gay marriage. At least enough for this to pass. So really things are just playing out the way they always have for quite a long time.
> In 2008 Obama campaigned for president against gay marriage.
His views were always much more nuanced than what I’ve heard from most republicans even today. He didn’t support gay marriage but did support civil unions and other civil rights protections.
It doesn’t matter, the Republican’s coordinate between the Senate and the House and the house can have some bi-partisan votes, but let it die in the Senate and still campaign that they supported the bill in races where it matters.
you would _THINK_ it would be covered by a combo of 9A and 14A (both equal rights, and P&I). This shouldn't be complicated.
But as far as a gay-marriage-amendment, i'm against. I just don't think its up to the gov at all to dictate who can be married. Just honor the damn marriage contracts like you do all other contracts.
>But as far as a gay-marriage-amendment, i'm against. I just don't think its up to the gov at all to dictate who can be married. Just honor the damn marriage contracts like you do all other contracts.
But the only way that government would honor all marriage contracts equally, treating them like any other contract, is through a Constitutional amendment declaring gay marriage equal to straight marriage. It only existed to begin with because it was implied to be a Constitutionally protected right.
Because the timeline we actually live in is the one in which the government already dictates who can't be married, precisely because the Constitution no longer forbids them from doing so.
You would also THINK that we don't need an amendment to state that women should be able to vote, or that an amendment that the color of your skin shouldn't restrict your ability to vote ...
The Constitution does have to do with marriage. The Full Faith and Credit clause refers to "public acts and records", which is precisely what marriage is.
It boggles my mind that you think your representative cares.
I'm glad your friends and family won't forget it, but neither will his other constituents. They'll turn out in droves to support him, and will almost certainly return him to office.
I don't know who your representative is, so maybe you're in one of those few knife-edge districts. But right now it looks as if Republicans are going to overwhelm the House and Senate, if only because people almost always vote against the party in the White House, even when there isn't a recession going on.
I don't believe there is one. I think we're well and truly fucked.
Maybe after this system is thrown out, one way or another, we'll replace it with a system less prone to tyrannies of the majority (or tyrannies of the minority with thumbs on the electoral scale). Perhaps proportional representation, or list voting.
But I think that the present system is now permanently captured and there's not much you can do about it. If you disagree (and for your sanity, you should), you can go ahead and try to communicate your feelings to your representative. I'm just going to complain about it.
Although they always talk about "less government interference" and freedom and rights, they consistently vote to strip already established rights and freedoms away from people.
Strictly speaking, advocating for small governments (more easily controlled, gerrymandered, etc) to decide whether or not certain humans have basic fucking rights is definitely a talking point with a rich history in the United States. (I’m aware not just republicans made such talking points in the past… only that that specific football has been in play a long while in many forms.)
The interesting thing to me is that the Senate version of the bill is sponsored by a Republican, meaning it should easily pass, yet Democratic leadership has thus far remained uncommitted to getting a vote on the floor due to "other priorities" and a recess coming up.
"It’s unclear if the Senate will take up the legislation, as Democratic leaders remained noncommittal on Tuesday. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he would personally support putting it on the floor, but questioned whether there’s enough time on the calendar with the Senate set to go on an extended recess in two weeks and two huge party priorities to finish before then.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would not say Tuesday if there would be a floor vote but said, “we’re going to look at everything we can do.”
An update from last night: in addition to Susan Collins as a primary sponsor to the Senate bill, Sen. Rob Portman from Ohio is also now signing on as a cosponsor.
> The interesting thing to me is that the Senate version of the bill is sponsored by a Republican, meaning it should easily pass, yet Democratic leadership has thus far remained uncommitted to getting a vote on the floor due to "other priorities" and a recess coming up.
Majority Leader Schumer has said he wants to bring it to the floor, but is working to assure that the Republican votes for it to pass (cloture, which takes 60 votes, more than the floor) are there first (that's been Schumer's MO on most things—if it's going to just get blocked by filibuster, he won't bring it up.)
I don't know how accurately he's reflecting his own position, but here's Rep. Jim Jordan saying that he feels this is the Democrats attempting to "delegitimize and attempt to intimidate the United States Supreme Court," and that the bill is "unnecessary"
This legislation is in direct response to one of the supreme court justices suggesting in his formal opinion that the supreme court decision to protect gay marriage (among others) should be reconsidered. Wether or not he believes the other parts, calling it "unnecessary" is downright intellectually dishonest.
29 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 80.5 ms ] threadHis views were always much more nuanced than what I’ve heard from most republicans even today. He didn’t support gay marriage but did support civil unions and other civil rights protections.
https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-...
I guess pandering to the lowest common denominator gets you votes.
My representative voted "no", and I guarantee my friends and family won't forget it.
The lack of uniformity would be a mess, though, so Congress should pass a constitutional amendment. It looks like they might have the votes.
But as far as a gay-marriage-amendment, i'm against. I just don't think its up to the gov at all to dictate who can be married. Just honor the damn marriage contracts like you do all other contracts.
But the only way that government would honor all marriage contracts equally, treating them like any other contract, is through a Constitutional amendment declaring gay marriage equal to straight marriage. It only existed to begin with because it was implied to be a Constitutionally protected right.
Because the timeline we actually live in is the one in which the government already dictates who can't be married, precisely because the Constitution no longer forbids them from doing so.
But that's the world we live in apparently.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress.
I'm glad your friends and family won't forget it, but neither will his other constituents. They'll turn out in droves to support him, and will almost certainly return him to office.
I don't know who your representative is, so maybe you're in one of those few knife-edge districts. But right now it looks as if Republicans are going to overwhelm the House and Senate, if only because people almost always vote against the party in the White House, even when there isn't a recession going on.
Maybe after this system is thrown out, one way or another, we'll replace it with a system less prone to tyrannies of the majority (or tyrannies of the minority with thumbs on the electoral scale). Perhaps proportional representation, or list voting.
But I think that the present system is now permanently captured and there's not much you can do about it. If you disagree (and for your sanity, you should), you can go ahead and try to communicate your feelings to your representative. I'm just going to complain about it.
Although they always talk about "less government interference" and freedom and rights, they consistently vote to strip already established rights and freedoms away from people.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would not say Tuesday if there would be a floor vote but said, “we’re going to look at everything we can do.”
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/07/19/dozens-of-repub...
An update from last night: in addition to Susan Collins as a primary sponsor to the Senate bill, Sen. Rob Portman from Ohio is also now signing on as a cosponsor.
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/u...
Majority Leader Schumer has said he wants to bring it to the floor, but is working to assure that the Republican votes for it to pass (cloture, which takes 60 votes, more than the floor) are there first (that's been Schumer's MO on most things—if it's going to just get blocked by filibuster, he won't bring it up.)
I don't know how accurately he's reflecting his own position, but here's Rep. Jim Jordan saying that he feels this is the Democrats attempting to "delegitimize and attempt to intimidate the United States Supreme Court," and that the bill is "unnecessary"
Supreme Court: rules marriage equality is constitutional
Bigots: damned activist judges shouldn't legislate from the bench
Congress: legislates marriage equality
Bigots: damned activist legislature shouldn't legislate its concurrence with the courts!
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29/...