Reported: Bipartisan Marriage Equality (Sufficient Senate Votes To Pass )

[Voluntarist]

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

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.

Things got more complicated when, around the same time, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced a surprise deal on a massive tax and climate change bill. Republicans were so mad that Democrats were ready to pass that deal without them that some signaled they would pull their support for a forthcoming same-sex marriage bill.

But with the midterm elections over and Democrats in position to hold the Senate for another two years, it looks like some Republicans are coming back to the table.
...
And because the Senate plans to take the House bill and simply amend it, versus senators introducing an entirely new bill, the House only has to vote to accept the changes to their bill versus starting the process over again.

All 50 Democratic senators have said they’d support legislation to codify same-sex marriage. That means the Senate bill needs at least 10 Republicans to support it, too, in order to overcome a filibuster. So who are they?

So far, the only GOP senators saying anything about this week’s forthcoming bill are the three who are in the bipartisan group that helped get a deal on the bill in the first place: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Thom Tillis (N.C.). The Democrats they’ve been working with are Baldwin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.).

Color me skeptical, but maybe they want to keep the Supreme Court out of the news.

 

[susano]

some Republicans raised concerns that it would stifle religious liberty

Meaning that churches would be forced to perform same sex or who knows what (furries, other gender *****s) marriages?

 

[acptulsa]

furries

So you think a man and a woman shouldn't be allowed to marry if they like animal costumes?

Where do you draw the line? Would you excommunicate people for bunny slippers?

 

[susano]

So you think a man and a woman shouldn't be allowed to marry if they like animal costumes?

Where do you draw the line? Would you excommunicate people for bunny slippers?

No, no, no, they are not just wearing the costumes but are actually the various creatures. We can't have unicorns marrying teddy bears, for God's sake.

The slippers, I guess, but pretty ghetto.

 

[Voluntarist]

Senate advances Respect for Marriage Act in bipartisan 62-37 vote

The Senate on Wednesday advanced legislation that would provide federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages, endorsing the measure in a bipartisan vote that moves it closer to becoming law.

The 62 to 37 vote was a crucial test of support for the bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act. With the backing of 12 Republican members, the Senate easily cleared the 60-vote procedural hurdle needed to move the legislation forward. Drafters of the plan were optimistic it would garner enough backing from the GOP after a bipartisan group of senators made changes to the bill to protect religious liberty.

The Republicans who voted to advance the bill are:

• Roy Blunt of Missouri
• Richard Burr of North Carolina
• Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
• Susan Collins of Maine
• Joni Ernst of Iowa
• Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
• Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
• Rob Portman of Ohio
• Mitt Romney of Utah
• Dan Sullivan of Alaska
• Thom Tillis of North Carolina
• Todd Young of Indiana

Shortly after the five senators involved in negotiations over the legislation unveiled their amendment Monday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer moved to set up Wednesday's procedural vote. Clearing the 60-vote threshold allows debate to start on the measure and puts the legislation closer to final passage.
...
Ahead of the procedural vote, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also came out in support of the revised bill with the religious liberty protections.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Government needs to stay out of marriage and just let the churches decide what they define as marriage.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

some Republicans raised concerns that it would stifle religious liberty

Meaning that churches would be forced to perform same sex or who knows what (furries, other gender *****s) marriages?

Section 6 of the Act says otherwise.

SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CONSCIENCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection
otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.

(b) GOODS OR SERVICES.—Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide
such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Codifying Loving v. Virginia, Windsor v. U.S., and Obergefell v. Hodges is essentially an exercise in political posturing. Those decisions are currently the law of the land and legislation codifying their holdings is therefore unnecessary.

Supporters of the legislation believe that it would forestall the Supreme Court's overturning these cases. But what is the constitutional basis for Congress to enact such legislation? Presumably, it's Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which authorizes Congress to enact appropriate legislation to enforce the Amendment. But if SCOTUS overturns these cases and says that there is no constitutional prohibition against anti-miscegention laws or laws recognizing only same-sex marriage, it seems that the basis for the codification legislation vanishes, except perhaps for the legislation's requirement that a state recognize a marriage that was legal under the laws of the state in which it was entered into.

See https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/20/federalism-and-the-respect-for-marriage-act/ for a good discussion.

 

[familydog]

Section 6 of the Act says otherwise.

Well, that's good enough for me! No law has ever been ignored by the government or rewritten by the courts before.

 

[Matt4Liberty]

Government needs to stay out of marriage and just let the churches decide what they define as marriage.

That's it. Why all the arguments about government and gay marriage. They should have gotten out of straight people's marriage.

 

[Snowball]

An amendment was forced into this by conservatives, with expressed limitations for what states may deem as marriage (limit 2 people), and with express protections for religious groups and those who do not affirm gay marriage. They cannot be discriminated against, for example in adoption services or business dealings.

Nothing is "codified" or "enshrined", it's just a bill and like any other it can be overturned by another Congress (like this one with this overturned the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996) or ruled against by SCOTUS.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

That's it. Why all the arguments about government and gay marriage. They should have gotten out of straight people's marriage.

While some think marriage is purely a religious institution, it is also a legal one that has significant ramifications. Civil marriages aren't going away, and so long as the government is going to recognize them and prescribe their legal results (e.g., determining who gets the property of someone who dies without a will), it cannot refuse to recognize a union on the basis of race or sexual orientation.

 

[Snowball]

While some think marriage is purely a religious institution, it is also a legal one that has significant ramifications. Civil marriages aren't going away, and so long as the government is going to recognize them and prescribe their legal results (e.g., determining who gets the property of someone who dies without a will), it cannot refuse to recognize a union on the basis of race or sexual orientation.

That is not true. Why? Because the Civil Rights Act did not define discrimination in that way. Sexual activity was not protected. The Scotus opinion and ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was merely an opinion of the Scotus at that time, and it was 5-4, just like Roe v Wade, it can be overturned. This is what Clarence Thomas said.

 

[oyarde]

A far as I can see the senate has no authority whatsoever over marriage. If these dipshits want to do something useful how about working on ending foreign aid ?

 

[TheCount]

That's it. Why all the arguments about government and gay marriage. They should have gotten out of straight people's marriage.

The arguments exist because a majority wanted to use the force of government to control other people's legal contracts.

 

[pcosmar]

The arguments exist because a majority wanted to use the force of government to control other people's legal contracts.

It was originally to control who could marry who.. and has no place in a free society.

 

[acptulsa]

 

[Sonny Tufts]

As noted above, there is nothing in the bill as amended in the Senate that would allow a church's tax exemption to be revoked because of its belief in traditional marriage.

It should also be noted that the tax exemptions of non-church organizations are already at risk if they employ certain practices that are deemed to violate public policy. See Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), where the Court (8-1) upheld the revocation of a university's exemption because of its racially discriminatory practices.

 

[acptulsa]

As noted above, there is nothing in the bill as amended in the Senate...

Move along, says Sonny. Nothing to be seen here--any more.

So why are they even still considering it, if it no longer changes a single blessed thing?

 

[Voluntarist]

As noted above, there is nothing in the bill as amended in the Senate that would allow a church's tax exemption to be revoked because of its belief in traditional marriage.

Move along, says Sonny. Nothing to be seen here--any more.

This is what the Congressional Record says regarding "tax exempt status":
SEC. 7. STATUTORY PROHIBITION.
(a) No Impact on Status and Benefits Not Arising From a Marriage.--Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.

So why are they even still considering it, if it no longer changes a single blessed thing?

They're considering it to codify "gay marriage" and "interracial marriage" into law, so in case the current Supreme Court removes those types of marriage as a right (by reviewing and rejecting a previous Supreme Court decision that read such a right into the Constitution) ... as Justice Thomas has stated could happen. Lindsey Graham tried taking the same approach with abortion.

I'd prefer that the government (at all levels) were out of the marriage business altogether. But I recall from my days in Fathers' Rights, that there are over 1,400 federal laws that treat people differently based upon marital status (marital law - which might be close enough to "martial" to get [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION]'s eye twitching) : everything from tax brackets to social security to default inheritance provisions. Maybe the people that vehemently oppose gay marriage will come together to get rid of all those marital laws - but I don't think that's what they're looking for. They're happy to have those marriage provisions for heterosexuals, they just want them denied to homosexuals. Imagine the outpouring of anger if you were to remove the privilege of a non-working wife to receive Social Security or Medicare payments following divorce from or the death of her husband. Pragmatically, those marital laws won't be going away.