5 ms·

House passes bill to codify marriage equality with large bipartisan support

43 points by samizdis 4y ago

civilized 4y ago
Not sure 50 Republicans is "large" but I guess it's enormous when compared to recent norms.
- decremental 4y ago
  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.
  - civilized 4y ago
    Something tells me Republicans won't be promoting intersectionality or gender affirmative therapy in 2027.
  - alphabettsy 4y ago
    > 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. https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/ https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-...
- MDWolinski 4y ago
  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.
mmazing 4y ago
It boggles my mind how anyone in 2022 can want to vote "no" on this bill. 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.
- jk20 4y ago
- mgarfias 4y ago
  It’s because they are pandering to the social cons in their district. Gross, but true.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    It’s because the Constitution has nothing to do with marriage - so any laws on that are reserved for states to legislate. The lack of uniformity would be a mess, though, so Congress should pass a constitutional amendment. It looks like they might have the votes.
    - mgarfias 4y ago
      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.
      - krapp 4y ago
        >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.
grecy 4y ago
All 157 no votes were Republican. 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.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  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.)
- zdragnar 4y ago
  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.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    I haven’t heard of this, can you post it here so I can cite the bill to my local (Democratic) house representative?
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      "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.” https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/07/19/dozens-of-republicans-back-codifying-marriage-equality-00046682 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-s-house-votes-to-protect-marriage-equality-ohio-gop-split https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/u...
mgarfias 4y ago
Bout damn time
g42gregory 4y ago
Can somebody summarize what is actually in this bill?
- open-paren 4y ago
  Go ahead and read the bill—it's not long. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29/...

43 points by samizdis 4y ago

civilized 4y ago

Not sure 50 Republicans is "large" but I guess it's enormous when compared to recent norms.

decremental 4y ago
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.
- civilized 4y ago
  Something tells me Republicans won't be promoting intersectionality or gender affirmative therapy in 2027.
- alphabettsy 4y ago
  > 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. https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/ https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-...
MDWolinski 4y ago
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.

mmazing 4y ago

It boggles my mind how anyone in 2022 can want to vote "no" on this bill. 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.

jk20 4y ago
mgarfias 4y ago
It’s because they are pandering to the social cons in their district. Gross, but true.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  It’s because the Constitution has nothing to do with marriage - so any laws on that are reserved for states to legislate. The lack of uniformity would be a mess, though, so Congress should pass a constitutional amendment. It looks like they might have the votes.
  - mgarfias 4y ago
    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.
    - krapp 4y ago
      >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.

grecy 4y ago

All 157 no votes were Republican. 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.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
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.)
zdragnar 4y ago
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.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  I haven’t heard of this, can you post it here so I can cite the bill to my local (Democratic) house representative?
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    "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.” https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/07/19/dozens-of-republicans-back-codifying-marriage-equality-00046682 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-s-house-votes-to-protect-marriage-equality-ohio-gop-split https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/u...

mgarfias 4y ago

Bout damn time

g42gregory 4y ago

Can somebody summarize what is actually in this bill?

open-paren 4y ago
Go ahead and read the bill—it's not long. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29/...