Congress to codify same-sex and interracial marriage

NBC News: Republican Sen. Rob Portman will cosponsor the Respect For Marriage Act, the House-passed bill to codify same-sex marriage.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1550088207580033024?s=21&t=hb-H4HZ_tlO_xEqcDGkOlg

You’re answering a grade 6 question that was never asked.

@Federal Farmer has been arguing that whether or not a woman should have access to reproductive medical services should be left up to the states (i.e. State’s Rights). I asked what difference it makes IN REGARDS TO STATE’S RIGHTS whether the “order” comes from the Supreme Court or Congress.

Roe v Wade established a woman’s right to privacy by order of the constitution - as interpreted by the Supreme Court. So, the ruling was sound - if Federal Farmer actually follows the creed of the Libertarian Party.

Making a law stating a woman has a right to reproductive medical services and privacy thereof, according to the Libertarian Party is redundant and unnecessary.

So, @Federal Farmer, do your own fucking homework, and explain your point.

It's pretty simple as I think I understand his explanation.

If enough people in a state want to take away other people's rights then that is their right, and it's wrong for the swamp dwellers in DC to try and take away their right to take away people's rights. Unless enough of the swamp dwellers decide to protect people's individual rights in which case it's right that the people lose their right at the state level to take away individuals rights.

I’m not advocating that anyone’s rights be taken away.

Only because you keep trying to make some pedantic argument that abortion rights aren't actually rights.

I can't either.

There's no Constitutional right to murder an unborn child. Is there an amendment we don't know about?

Of course there isn’t. There’s also no Constitutional right to murder a unicorn. Because neither exists. The entity, or type of entity, to which you are referring is a fetus. AFTER it’s born, it’s a baby. It’s not a baby prior to birth.

I believe the same thing Democrats used to believe, it should be safe legal and rare. I don't believe voters should take away the option, but if they do manage to pass a law doing so then the people of that state have spoken. The best thing that voters who believe abortion should be legal is to fight back any way they can. Win elections, vote people in that support your view, take them to court, etc... I don't support their vote for outright banning abortion, but I do support their right to vote.

Now some (@Order2Chaos) may argue that you shouldn't support someones right to vote to reinstate slavery. This of course is an extreme example and really should be paid no mind. I don't see a ground swell of people advocating for bringing back slavery and to do so would likely result in a lot of government infrastructure to prop up the slave industry which goes against my political philosophy of limited government and of course I wouldn't support it on moral grounds as well. Never mind the constitutionality of such a law.

This is the crux of the argument though, isn't it. There's nothing in the constitution that says you have a right to abortion because the intent of the constitution is that most things should be left up to the states. The problem with abortion is there two lives involved and it is up to the government to protect life. Neither side of the argument can agree on where life begins from a philosophical point , but it does begin in the womb and at some point that life does need to be protected. Each individual state is going to decide that for themselves.

Liberal states will have a broader definition and conservative states will have a more narrow definition. Either way two individuals' rights need protection, not just the mother/father. I'm not trying to take people's rights away, I'm for protecting all individual rights. I think as a society we need to settle these questions and Roe didn't really do that. Roe was a bad decision from the outset, I think it's much more reasonable for each state to decide for themselves what to do about abortion. Both sides will go to the extreme and a lot of people will unfortunately get hurt, but I hope once the dust settles we'll come up with a reasonable compromise.

Why?

I'll actually agree with that ... not out of some lazy, milquetoast compulsion to find a mushy middle ground, but for the same reason that I think kidney transplants should be rare: Not needing a medical procedure is always preferable to needing one, and prevention is always better than cure.

Of course, most anti-abortion folks are also firmly opposed to anything that has been shown to reduce unplanned pregnancies, so that probably tells us something.

Still seems to me like in summary:

If enough people in a state want to take away other people's rights then that is their right, and it's wrong for the swamp dwellers in DC to try and take away their right to take away people's rights. Unless enough of the swamp dwellers decide to protect people's individual rights in which case it's right that the people lose their right at the state level to take away individuals rights.

Don't tread on me! But also, don't take away my ability to tread on everybody else.

Ok @Federal Farmer since that is dumb there's clearly something which I've missed about your views and I apologise for that. Which of these parts isn't an accurate representation of your views:

• If enough people in a state want to take away other people's rights then that is their right. (For purposes of this statement aligning with the recent SCOTUS ruling which frequently used the term right when referring to ability to access abortion)
• It's wrong for the swamp dwellers in DC to try and take away their right to take away people's rights.
• Unless enough of the swamp dwellers decide to protect people's individual rights
• In which case it's right that the people lose their right at the state level to take away individuals rights.

“Remember, it’s all in your head.”

Respect for Marriage Act: How Congress can protect same-sex marriage from the Supreme Court. (slate.com)


Put simply, the RFMA creates a backstop to ensure that every same-sex couple can retain protections after Obergefell’s demise if their own state nullifies their marriage. And it does so on strong constitutional grounds that should withstand any legal challenge.
A short history lesson helps illuminate the purpose and effect of the RFMA. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court indicated that it would grant gay citizens the right to wed. This ruling provoked two major fears among anti-LGBTQ advocates. First, they worried that the federal government would recognize same-sex marriages performed in Hawaii. (Federal law affords more than 1,000 rights and privileges to married couples.) Second, they fretted that every other state would have to recognize these marriages due to the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause.
Congress responded to these concerns by passing DOMA in 1996. DOMA imposed a federal ban on same-sex marriage, denying federal rights and privileges to same-sex couples who are married under state law. It also declared that no state had an obligation to recognize a same-sex marriage licensed by another state. As a result, when same-sex couples began marrying in Massachusetts in 2004, they were still deemed legal strangers by the federal government and every other state. The Supreme Court invalidated DOMA in 2013’s U.S. v. Windsor, but it remains on the books, ready to spring back into effect should the court overturn Windsor.
Which brings us to the present. Windsor, like Obergefell, is gravely imperiled by the Supreme Court’s decision overruling Roe v. Wade. The majority announced a new test that acknowledges only those rights that were widely embraced in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. No one seriously argues that Americans viewed same-sex marriage as a fundamental right 154 years ago. So the majority’s logic would require the reversal of Windsor and Obergefell. In a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas declared outright that the court should eradicate its marriage equality precedents.
Congressional Democrats responded to this anti-gay assault with the RFMA. The bill repeals DOMA’s bar against federal recognition of same-sex marriage, replacing it with a mandate that the federal government recognize any marriage that is “valid in the state” where it was “entered into.” In other words, if you wed in a state that allows same-sex marriage, the federal government must recognize your union.
This provision, however, raises a pressing question: What happens if the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell and states are no longer obligated to allow same-sex marriage? About 35 states still have laws (or constitutional amendments) on the books that outlaw these unions, which would take effect once again if Obergefell falls. Ideally, Congress could order states to license same-sex marriages regardless of existing bans. But the Supreme Court has forbidden the federal government from telling states to pass or repeal their own laws.
So the RFMA does the next best thing: It compels every state to recognize a marriage licensed elsewhere without discriminating on the basis of those individuals’ “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.” (The bill also protects interracial marriage, though no state seeks to outlaw such unions right now.) To do so, the RFMA relies on the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause. This clause gives Congress the power to make states grant “full faith and credit” to the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of other states.
Despite its broad language, this rule has been deemed largely optional by the Supreme Court, which lets states deny “full faith and credit” to another state’s laws, records, or judgments if it conflicts with their “public policy.” This opt-out doesn’t apply, though, when Congress exercises its constitutional authority to command nationwide uniformity under the clause. So, for instance, Congress has ordered every state to grant full faith and credit to a custody determination and child support order issued by another state. It took this step to prevent parents from kidnapping their children by absconding to a different state and relitigating a custody order against them.

Remember, you're the idiot saying the shit. Bailey is just repeating it. So, if it doesn't make sense, now you know how we feel.

Care to clarify anything?

When you mention "two lives involved", the left knows this in their hearts and minds but they'll never admit it. Why? Because they're selfish and their ideology prevents them from placing the life of the unborn ahead of it. That's really the crux of the issue.

What did you have for breakfast? any day. not just today. Ever eat an egg? fucking murderer. ever eat beef or pork? murderer. ever eat vegetables? murderer.

Embryos are no "life". Even a child of 12 has taken grade six science and knows this.

You support genocide. You support capital punishment. You support putting AK-47s in the hands of teenagers. YOu support some of the most murderous acts among human kind and have the audacity to say this? You are out of your fucking mind.