BRKG U.S. Senate approves bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage under federal law

[somewherepress]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1597733500064788481

View: https://twitter.com/Worldsource24/status/1597733500064788481


Breaking News 24/7
@Worldsource24


#BREAKING: U.S. Senate approves bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage under federal law


5:25 PM · Nov 29, 2022

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-11-29/senate-passes-bill-to-protect-same-sex-and-interracial-marriage

Senate Passes Bill to Protect Same-Sex and Interracial Marriage​

The bill would create federal protections for same-sex marriages while repealing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

By Kaia Hubbard
|
Nov. 29, 2022, at 6:25 p.m.
Save
More

Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill
More

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks to reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats at the U.S. Capitol November 29, 2022 in Washington, DC.(DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES)
The Senate punctuated a divisive and dizzying lame-duck session with the passage of a bipartisan bill to codify federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages on Tuesday – a major step to safeguard the unions if the rights go the way of abortion at the Supreme Court.
“For millions of Americans, today is a very good day – an important day, a day that’s been a long time in coming,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said on Tuesday. “Today, the inexorable march toward greater equality advances forward.”


Twelve Republican senators – Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Shelley Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Robert Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Todd Young of Indiana – joined Democrats to pass the bill in a 61-36 vote that marks the largest hurdle to the legislation and a historic moment.

​

 

[Red Baron]

There is no such thing as a Constitutionally mandated Federal Marriage License.

The Federal government has no standing in this matter.


The Tenth Amendment is similar to Article II of the Articles of Confederation:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.[7]

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nowski]

The POS fags, now have complete control over the ZUSA,
and soon, very soon, they will be able to come after your
children totally protected by federal law.

They should have been dealt with, as Russia is dealing with them,
decades ago, and so much evil that now encompasses the ZUSA,
would not have occurred.

There are now more Christians in the new Russia, than in the ZUSA.
Simply amazing how the roles of a country can be reversed.

I pray for the new Russia, but I do not, and I never will again,
pray for the out of the pits of hell ZUSA. Whatever bad is
coming for the ZUSA, it is greatly deserved.

Please be safe everyone.

Regards to all.

Nowski

 

[Samuel Adams]

There is no such thing as a Constitutionally mandated Federal Marriage License.

The Federal government has no standing in this matter.


The Tenth Amendment is similar to Article II of the Articles of Confederation:

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have researched, extensively, the original rights of man…..and stumbled across myriad examples of the obliteration of the same.

Congress did the People no favors in giving the states so much consideration, in the Tenth.

And, whoever it was, in some cases so shortly following the very Revolutionary War, who gave the states ANY power to tax any American off their land…..should have been publicly drawn and quartered, alive, on the spot.

 

[Housecarl]

Lays a sturdy foundation for another earnings stream of billable hours for family law practices...

 

[NCGirl]

This has nothing to do with the rights of gays to marry but it will cause problems for the churches who don't want to marry them.

 

[Housecarl]

This has nothing to do with the rights of gays to marry but it will cause problems for the churches who don't want to marry them.

This....

 

[helen]

Interracial marriage isn't legal?

 

[Housecarl]

Interracial marriage isn't legal?

That's the wedge they used to get this through the door....if it isn't explicitly stated in law it doesn't exist in the mind of the legal eagles, or buzzards.

 

[kyrsyan]

Interracial marriage isn't legal?

There used to be a state or two that still had old laws on the books. Ones that hadn't been enforced in at least 50 years. But IIRC, even those states got rid of those laws years ago. Heck, AL is re-writing it's whole constitution to ensure that there is absolutely no language remaining that could be considered discriminatory or racial. Just to make sure that none of that stuff can come back to haunt later on.

 

[Thinwater]

Interracial marriage isn't legal?

Virtue signaling like the anti-lynching law they passed a year or so go.

 

[33dInd]

Uhm
The Supreme Court ruled on this issue specifically in 1965
Tha blacks and whites could marry

 

[kyrsyan]

Uhm
The Supreme Court ruled on this issue specifically in 1965
Tha blacks and whites could marry

But they have to stir up the racial stuff as well as the abortion stuff, and the trans stuff. So a Congressional law to make sure that the Supreme Court can't reverse those decisions like they did Roe v Wade. But notice, nothing on abortion.

And note, this is not because any state is likely to try to reverse those decisions. And I don't really have a problem with the law.

This is purely to stir up emotional stuff, and to be seen as "doing something", and to make digs at the Supreme Court. But... the Supreme Court was right. Congress needs to be passing laws, not depending on the SC to create laws by court decisions. So Congress is passing a law. Just not one that really has anything to do with the issues people want resolved.

 

[TammyinWI]

This is not the complete tell-all regarding what that bill is all about.

 

[vector7]

This has nothing to do with the rights of gays to marry but it will cause problems for the churches who don't want to marry them.

Exactly.

Just like the Left pushed to close down bakeries who refused to cater to gay couples for being intolerant. Now their going after American Christian churches who still teach that Romans 1:26 is a sin. Gays will push to be married in those churches or they'll get fined/shut down too.

Thank 8...now 10 years of Obama for this.

Anti-Gay Bakery's Closing Is Evidence Of 'Homosexual Mafia,' Pundit Claims

Anti-Gay Bakery's Closing Is Evidence Of 'Homosexual Mafia,' Pundit Claims

www.huffpost.com

GoFundMe shuts down crowdfunding for anti-gay bakery

An Oregon bakery that refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding had its crowdfunding page shut down after just one day.

money.cnn.com

Christian Baker Fined $135,000 for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake is on a New Mission

Melissa and Aaron Klein, the bakers at the center of a years-long battle centered on their refusal to make a same-sex wedding cake, are fundraising to open a new shop where they hope to “show God’s goodness to everyone.”

www1.cbn.com

Owners who refused cake for gay couple close shop

They say bakery was profitable; woman wanted to spend more time with grandchildren.

www.usatoday.com

Anti-Gay Gresham Bakery Sweet Cakes By Melissa Finally Closes

Right-wing news sites are blaming the “pro-LGBT Gay Mafia” and the “Homofascist Mob” for the bakery’s closure.

www.wweek.com

 

[Jeff B.]

No different than the DOMA act, this will be found unconstitutional. The progressive left will of course, howl about the radical right wing Supreme Court justices. Never understanding that those SCJ's aren't realy conservative when compared to the deplorables in fly over country.

 

[stop tyranny]

Bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage under federal law ?????​

I did not realize interracial marriage was against the law in any of the 50 states.

 

[MtnGal]

The Supreme Court ruled on this issue specifically in 1965
Tha blacks and whites could marry

Not in Alabama, they couldn't live together off base. One of the rules our landlord had was if you see a ****** on the property you shoot them. That was in 1968.

 

[thompson]

Uhm
The Supreme Court ruled on this issue specifically in 1965
Tha blacks and whites could marry

Loving v. Virginia

 

[helen]

The Supreme Court ruled on this issue specifically in 1965
Tha blacks and whites could marry

Not in Alabama, they couldn't live together off base. One of the rules our landlord had was if you see a ****** on the property you shoot them. That was in 1968.

I saw a cross burning in Alabama in 1966.

 

[nomifyle]

Interracial marriage isn't legal?

It wasn't for like forever, I though it was legal now. I had friends that were interracial and the married in probably the late 80's.

Personally I have no problems with either type of marriage, I just wish they wouldn't make such a big in your face deal about it. But, I guess, because there is such an outrage about it that what can you do.

 

[helen]

Many of mine are genetically interracial. Apparently we're not diverse enough, as ALL of us on one side have a very rare genetic defect that appears to have originated on the Caucasion line.

 

[TFergeson]

They are indeed going to use this law to come after the churches, and the children (pedophiliac marriages are now legal). There are many scripture versus that apply to this situation.

We move one step closer to Christ's return. Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus.

 

[raven]

Can you get a Federal Marriage License?
No.
The Federal Government has no "standing" within the "issue" of marriage.

 

[CaryC]

Exactly.

Just like the Left pushed to close down bakeries who refused to cater to gay couples for being intolerant. Now their going after American Christian churches who still teach that Romans 1:26 is a sin. Gays will push to be married in those churches or they'll get fined/shut down too.

Thank 8...now 10 years of Obama for this.

Anti-Gay Bakery's Closing Is Evidence Of 'Homosexual Mafia,' Pundit Claims

Anti-Gay Bakery's Closing Is Evidence Of 'Homosexual Mafia,' Pundit Claims

www.huffpost.com

GoFundMe shuts down crowdfunding for anti-gay bakery

An Oregon bakery that refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding had its crowdfunding page shut down after just one day.

money.cnn.com

Christian Baker Fined $135,000 for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake is on a New Mission

Melissa and Aaron Klein, the bakers at the center of a years-long battle centered on their refusal to make a same-sex wedding cake, are fundraising to open a new shop where they hope to “show God’s goodness to everyone.”

www1.cbn.com

Owners who refused cake for gay couple close shop

They say bakery was profitable; woman wanted to spend more time with grandchildren.

www.usatoday.com

Anti-Gay Gresham Bakery Sweet Cakes By Melissa Finally Closes

Right-wing news sites are blaming the “pro-LGBT Gay Mafia” and the “Homofascist Mob” for the bakery’s closure.

www.wweek.com

Already started in the UK:

UK Govt Prosecutors Argue Parts of Bible ‘No Longer Appropriate in Modern Society’​

Snipet:

Lawyers for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) of England and Wales tried to have a Christian street preacher convicted for quoting the Bible to a lesbian couple, insisting that scripture is “no longer appropriate in modern society “.

The extraordinary case, mounted in what is still nominally a Christian church, with an established church in which the head of state serves as Supreme Governor, was brought against armed forces veteran and throat cancer survivor John Dunn, after the police referred him to prosecutors for telling a lesbian couple that it “says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God” in Swindon.

UK Govt Prosecutors Say Parts of Bible 'No Longer Appropriate' to Speak

The Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales tried to have a Christian street preacher convicted for quoting the Bible to a gay couple.

www.breitbart.com

They are indeed going to use this law to come after the churches, and the children (pedophiliac marriages are now legal). There are many scripture versus that apply to this situation.

We move one step closer to Christ's return. Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus.

True and will open the door to all kinds of perverse marriages:

Human to goat

Male to male to male to.......

Sister Wives

One male multiple minors

And just think they haven't even thought of some of the things they will want to do in the future.

Can you get a Federal Marriage License?
No.
The Federal Government has no "standing" within the "issue" of marriage.

Also totally agree. It's a state thing, like abortion.

But that won't stop them from trying.

Those in DC want to control it all.

 

[Publius]

I thought interracial marriage thing between a man and woman was settled long ago.
I guess this is to prevent discrimination of interracial gay marriage only.

 

[vector7]

I thought interracial marriage thing between a man and woman was settled long ago.
I guess this is to prevent discrimination of interracial gay marriage only.

For Decades the LBGTQ community has been using the Civil Rights model of the 60s to proliferate their agenda.

That's why you see all these radical Leftists orgs all rolling together for Social Justice to fundamentally transform America from so many directions at once turning our social atmosphere into a Woke Culture.

 

[raven]

Already started in the UK:

UK Govt Prosecutors Argue Parts of Bible ‘No Longer Appropriate in Modern Society’​

Snipet:

Lawyers for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) of England and Wales tried to have a Christian street preacher convicted for quoting the Bible to a lesbian couple, insisting that scripture is “no longer appropriate in modern society “.

The extraordinary case, mounted in what is still nominally a Christian church, with an established church in which the head of state serves as Supreme Governor, was brought against armed forces veteran and throat cancer survivor John Dunn, after the police referred him to prosecutors for telling a lesbian couple that it “says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God” in Swindon.

UK Govt Prosecutors Say Parts of Bible 'No Longer Appropriate' to Speak

The Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales tried to have a Christian street preacher convicted for quoting the Bible to a gay couple.

www.breitbart.com

True and will open the door to all kinds of perverse marriages:

Human to goat

Male to male to male to.......

Sister Wives

One male multiple minors

And just think they haven't even thought of some of the things they will want to do in the future.


Also totally agree. It's a state thing, like abortion.

But that won't stop them from trying.

Those in DC want to control it all.

Actually, it is not even a state thing.
Co-habitation is local.
Marriage is religious.

Legal Partnership between two individuals is contract law.

 

[kyrsyan]

There really is an easy way to fix this. Churches start calling it "sacred unions". In a few years the left will have a meltdown over just church people getting "sacred unions" and will want that term for themselves. And will leave the "common" term of marriage for "those odd church people." Or they won't and the churches will provide sacred unions, with or without government licenses depending on the wishes of the couple who are being united.

 

[33dInd]

But they have to stir up the racial stuff as well as the abortion stuff, and the trans stuff. So a Congressional law to make sure that the Supreme Court can't reverse those decisions like they did Roe v Wade. But notice, nothing on abortion.

And note, this is not because any state is likely to try to reverse those decisions. And I don't really have a problem with the law.

This is purely to stir up emotional stuff, and to be seen as "doing something", and to make digs at the Supreme Court. But... the Supreme Court was right. Congress needs to be passing laws, not depending on the SC to create laws by court decisions. So Congress is passing a law. Just not one that really has anything to do with the issues people want resolved.

Those ar good, reasoned words. Well put and indomitable in their logic

 

[Melodi]

Interracial Marriage was finally made legal everywhere (and in my lifetime) by a Supreme Court decision, the same way that abortion was "legalized" for nearly the same number of years.

So it is perfectly logical to be concerned that a few States (and they know who they are)could potentially try to forbid "interracial" marriages again if they chose to do so.

It makes perfect sense to try for a Federal Law making such a possibility illegal though the Supreme Court may rule it isn't a Federal Manner and send it back to the States. Then, if a State were to intact such a law, it would have to go through the court system where almost any Supreme Court would probably rule it as unconstitutional.

But the point is, the original changes that brought a couple of states to change their laws (kicking and screaming if I recall) were based on a Supreme Court ruling. Which as we've seen can be overturned by a future court as happened with abortion.

I have no problem combining it with a same-sex marriage bill which could end up in the same boat, either the Supreme Court is likely to find that BOTH issues are up to the States (provided the States follow the US Consitution) or they can be decided by Congress on the Federal level.

I have no idea what the Supreme Court will do, but in terms of who can and can not sign a legal contract between two people, the issues are really the same. Can the States decide who those two people are, or are they now within the power of the US Congress?

 

[Knoxville's Joker]

Interracial Marriage was finally made legal everywhere (and in my lifetime) by a Supreme Court decision, the same way that abortion was "legalized" for nearly the same number of years.

So it is perfectly logical to be concerned that a few States (and they know who they are)could potentially try to forbid "interracial" marriages again if they chose to do so.

It makes perfect sense to try for a Federal Law making such a possibility illegal though the Supreme Court may rule it isn't a Federal Manner and send it back to the States. Then, if a State were to intact such a law, it would have to go through the court system where almost any Supreme Court would probably rule it as unconstitutional.

But the point is, the original changes that brought a couple of states to change their laws (kicking and screaming if I recall) were based on a Supreme Court ruling. Which as we've seen can be overturned by a future court as happened with abortion.

I have no problem combining it with a same-sex marriage bill which could end up in the same boat, either the Supreme Court is likely to find that BOTH issues are up to the States (provided the States follow the US Consitution) or they can be decided by Congress on the Federal level.

I have no idea what the Supreme Court will do, but in terms of who can and can not sign a legal contract between two people, the issues are really the same. Can the States decide who those two people are, or are they now within the power of the US Congress?

Roe v Wade was a flawed ruling. The supreme court ruling made that abundantly clear.

Same sex marriage, although not spelled out specifically in the constitution, is a hot potato and in all honesty could go the way of Roe v Wade and hand the right back to the states.

There is an offset to this as well, the liberal states will stay liberal, meaning california would only have liberals as their life style could not be exported to other states.


And this really goes back to the fact if you move to a different state, you do not import your ideals, you assimilate the new ideals of where you live. I have a feeling that this may end up coding codified at a state level to address the influx of liberal transplants ruining established small town america...


As Dennis has repeatedly said we will have two economies if things do not change course.

 

[Groucho]

So the politicians are good with a grotesque parody of marriage. So be it. It's on their heads.

 

[ShadowMan]

Now this may sound stupid.....but.....just where in the Constitution does it give permission for the Federal government to have any jurisdiction over marriage? Of any type? In any way shape or form?

The Federal government DOES NOT HAVE CARD BLANCHE over everything. IN FACT the Constitution actually defines exactly what the Federal government can and cannot do and get involved with. We need to stop this constant making up laws that are nothing but UN-Constitutional crap. Then having to wait YEARS & DECADES for an UN-constitutional law to finally make it to the Supreme Court to be thrown out....AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! How stupid is that?

 

[TKO]

Mormons are all for it!

 

[Trouble]

We can’t fix all that’s wrong with our country, but all the faggots and mud sharks are protected. I feel better now.

 

[vector7]

More Left intolerant irony...

BREAKING: Virginia restaurant cancels Christmas party after LGBTQ staff REFUSE to serve Christians
"Welcome to the double standard of the left, where some believe Jack Phillips must be forced to create a wedding cake as part of the celebration of a same-sex ceremony but any business should be able to deny basic goods and services to those who hold biblical values around marriage."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600157152701652993

View: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1600157152701652993?s=20&t=-EAIAnzT6bxcducIPsdhLA


How would this have gone over if they refused to serve Jews on Hanukkah?

Or even better - Muslims on Ramadan.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600158832314880000

View: https://twitter.com/HungryManticore/status/1600158832314880000?s=20&t=-EAIAnzT6bxcducIPsdhLA

 

[Hognutz]

 

[vector7]

Gov. Ron DeSantis calls out the "Respect of Marriage Act": an encroachment on religious liberties and values by the federal government, through the veneer of equality.
RT 1min

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1603047065311121409

View: https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1603047065311121409?t=GK-ssKEuiTLhenHQjLu0PA&s=19

 

[raven]

Now this may sound stupid.....but.....just where in the Constitution does it give permission for the Federal government to have any jurisdiction over marriage? Of any type? In any way shape or form?

The Federal government DOES NOT HAVE CARD BLANCHE over everything. IN FACT the Constitution actually defines exactly what the Federal government can and cannot do and get involved with. We need to stop this constant making up laws that are nothing but UN-Constitutional crap. Then having to wait YEARS & DECADES for an UN-constitutional law to finally make it to the Supreme Court to be thrown out....AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! How stupid is that?

You cannot even get a Federal Marriage License.

Of course, I would also tell you that you are not a US citizen until you get a passport or unless you have been Naturalized by The US State Department.
Because if you were a US citizen, you would not need to order an official copy of your birth certificate - the long form that includes your parents. The US government would already have that. You have to order your birth certificate from the country and state in which you were born - that is where your true "citizenship" lies.