Congress to codify same-sex and interracial marriage

CBS reporting

It passed the House with 47 Republicans in favor. (The other 157 Republicans can kindly go die in a fire.)

I imagine 10 GOP Senators will support it too.

Remember during the Bush 43 years when the GOP wanted "traditional" marriage protected by a constitutional amendment? We've come a long way.

Sorry, Clarence. Looks like you're gonna be stuck with your crazy wife.

Way overdue.

Good.

Now do Lawrence.

Gay adoption.

Brown v Board of Education.

Contraception.

Morning After Pill.

IVF.

Life of mother abortion.

Health of mother abortion.

JUST Prior Roe (the earlier show bill went a lot further than where Roe was prior to Dobbs).

All individual bills. All narrow as fuck so no wiggle room.

Get it done while we can and get every R on the record as for or against.

Either shut the fuck up or explain, like REALLY explain, how a federal law is different from a federal supreme court ruling. dumb fucking asshole.

I'm not so sure this is going to pass the Senate. I hope I'm wrong, but the way it's set up cowards can easily hide their stance without having to vote once the filibuster is announced.

I sense much anger in you. You should be happy, this is a step in the right direction.

You sense nothing. You are attempting to sidestep my question by acting like you're being funny (psst, you're not).

Seriously, explain how a federal law is different from a federal supreme court ruling in reference to state's rights.

The only thing you sense is that hobo's cock in your mother's vagina.

You see the federal government is comprised of three branches, the legislative, the judicial and the executive. The legislative branch creates the laws that govern us, the judicial branch interprets the law and decides whether it's constitutional and the executive branch enforces the law. These are the basic tenets of our system. I thought you knew this already.

I do know this. You’re not answering my question. Your argument has thus far been that the right to abortion is a states rights issue. How is the legislative branch ruling different from the existing Supreme Court ruling?

NOTE: this is one of those instances where you will actually have to think because the GOP hasn’t yet put out an 8 second, 3 word phrase to explain it for you.

Gee, I can't imagine what a woman living in America today could possibly have to be angry about.

Why do you hate on FF's mom? Or hobos?

I don't hate on either.

I pity them.

FF's mom did have a choice though. Not much of one, admittedly.

I may be giving FF too much credit, but the point he might be trying to make is that he doesn't have a problem with a federal law superceding state law as such, but he has a problem with such laws being set up by the judicial branch because the judicial branch should not be making laws, only interpreting whether they are constitutional or not.

Oh, fuck yes.

Which is, of course, exactly what Roe v. Wade was about.

OK, I am glad the house did something, but two points.

1. (I hope I eat these words) The senate republicans are a hive mind of evil dipshittery who will never ever let this pass. Moscow mitch would kill 10 senate reps if they decided to vote for the bill. You will also need at least 12 because manchin and sinema are on the republican human centipede.

2. Great that marriage is about to be protected when the supreme fascist court is going to allow GLBT people to be fired based on religion. You can get married all day long, but if your employment is not protected it is absolutely nothing. Gay marriage is a bullshit distraction meant to be nothing if your rights to not be discrimi9nated against are not protected. GLBT people are not specifically identified in anti-prejudice protections in the federal government. They were included based on supreme court decisions. Since precedent does not matter and the supreme court is loaded with people who hate the fact christians cannot discriminate based on their religion anti-prejudice needs to be codified before marriage can even matter.

Where are the dems on passing protection for GLBT on discrimination? Oh yeah, nowhere.

Let us not forget white christian nati0onalist Joe Biden is the guy holding the ball if the senate passes anything. He was going to give his BFF mitch a anti-abortion federal judge as a lovers present. Joe was cock blocked by Rand Paul of all people. There is a good chance if this passes by miracle Joe will veto it because he is the goal keeper for the right.

I don't think the Turtle really gives a shit about marriage equality. If he thinks passing the bill will aid the cause of Republican kleptocracy, he'll help pass it; if he thinks stopping it will aid the Republican kleptocracy, he'll help stop it.

I believe, too, that you are giving too much credit to FF.

However, in reference to your argument … It’s my understanding that the original Roe V Wade ruling was exactly that - interpreting the constitution and making a ruling based on the intent of the constitution. That the right of a woman to not have her medical procedures subject to state laws regarding reproductive issues. That a woman has the right to privacy. And the state cannot look into her medical history to rule any such procedures as against any law.

That we now have to have a law specifically stating women cannot be punished for such medical procedures should be adamantly against any “Libertarian” as they firmly believe fewer laws are better.

So, I have to ask, again, how is a federal Supreme Court ruling different from a federal law in reference to state’s rights issues?

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Liar.

I know, right. They have the right to vote, now exercise it! Show us what you got, ladies!

Asshole

Don't ask me questions if you're just going to call me a liar or put words in my mouth in response.

What, I'm in support of your right to vote.

You didn’t answer my question. And if you read my response to Raoul, you’d know he didn’t answer it either. So, for you to come in and claim he answered the question for you, is not only false, but intellectually dishonest. Your argument wasn’t about the Supreme Court vs Congress. Your argument was about federal law vs state law. So, stop lying and either answer or quit piggybacking on someone else’s response.

Raul weeded out exactly what I was thinking because you're too stupid to know the functions of the three branches of government. He was correct in his assessment. All three branches of government have been derelict of their duties over the past two decades and the Supreme Court has apparently had enough of it. Now Congress is faced with a choice and the states are faced with the same choice. They're finally moving the needle on some of these things and I'm happy with that because that means they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Roe never solved this issue, it kicked the can down the road until there was no more road left. It was never a good decision. I do believe that the states should be left to do pretty much whatever, within reason, but we do have a federal government for a reason. When the states can't come up with proper solutions to these questions, it eventually falls on congress to come up a solution. There are limits and those limits are set up in the constitution, but It doesn't hurt my feelings if they want to pass a law saying same sex marriage is legal. I voted to change the Maryland constitution to allow for same sex marriage. I would prefer it that way, but in the end if the three branches are doing their jobs properly, fine. Raul nailed it on the head exactly what I was thinking, it's not my problem that you're too stupid to understand all of this.

I'm not going to spend too much more time steel-manning his arguments on this point, especially since I don't agree with them and even the steel-man version of them is kind of weak IMO.

But at least hypothetically, there is a difference between saying "this law is constitutional/unconstitutional and here are the reasons" and doing what Roe in establishing a wide-ranging framework of rules that a court is arguably ill-equipped to do. In saying (to oversimplify), states cannot infringe on a woman's right to abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, but they can sometimes in the second and they really really can in the third, the Roe majority was acting far more like a legislature. It would be one thing if Congress had made a law that was the equivalent of Roe, because that law would have been enacted through the democratic process and therefore would have been fairer. It also could just as easily been repealed if the democratic process had allowed for it. Individual states and their delegations to Congress could have modified or gotten rid of a Congressional version of Roe. But they could not really do anything against a SCOTUS version of Roe (well, except what they did, was to keep on passing versions of anti-abortion laws, fight court battles and chip away at it for the past 50 years until they finally got the SCOTUS that would hand them a large victory.)

Casey, actually.

Casey set some guardrails on Roe that Progressives find too constricting but allowed rational abortion policy which the right chafed at.

Codify Casey (or something very similar) as the national policy and most of these (true) horror stories, if not all, are covered and you hit pretty close to the sweet spot of majority opinion.

And bears might shit in the woods.