5 ms·

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

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.
    - mmazing 4y ago
      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 ... But that's the world we live in apparently. Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    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.
jfengel 4y ago
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.
- mmazing 4y ago
  What's the alternative to caring about what my representative does then?
  - jfengel 4y ago
    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.

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.
  - mmazing 4y ago
    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 ... But that's the world we live in apparently. Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress.
- jfengel 4y ago
  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.

jfengel 4y ago

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.

mmazing 4y ago
What's the alternative to caring about what my representative does then?
- jfengel 4y ago
  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.