Originally published at: Joined by 47 Republicans, House Democrats codify gay marriage in legislation | Boing Boing
…
5 Likes
Might be prudent to codify Loving v. Virginia into Federal law while they’re at it given the way things have been going…
9 Likes
It’s in there.
15 Likes
Mea Culpa, I should have read the whole thing before commenting. So most Republicans are now on record opposing protections for interracial marriage too.
18 Likes
It’s just about states rights /s
12 Likes
It won’t pass the Senate - but it’s exactly what they should be doing. And louder. Revote & pass a new bill on this and abortion rights every damn week.
32 Likes
Some of the voting dynamics were interesting though. All four Utah republicans voted in favor of it, when Utah was one of the states that fought the hardest against marriage equality not long ago. A number of Congressmen who voted for the original Defense Of Marriage Act (the one that prohibited gay marriage) also voted in favor. Clearly at least some legislators have either had a change of heart (unlikely) or come to the realization that voting against this puts them on the wrong side of history.
If anyone in the Senate tries to filibuster the vote the Democrats need to make sure it’s very public, generating iconic and unforgettable footage like George Wallace’s “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” speech that will become the legacy those Senators are remembered for.
14 Likes
I realize you are being sarcastic, but it’s quite interesting to me. The provisions in the bill,
seems like it protects state rights.
5 Likes
Some part of me wonders if there is a “bring back polygamy,” element to their vote.
6 Likes
Possibly. And if everyone are truly consenting adults, with freedom to choose to enter, and leave, then more power to them.
11 Likes
Part of my pessimistic mindset is that maybe this codifies child-marriage at the federal level if all people have to do to marry a 12-year-old is get their parents to take them to an accommodating state before they sell their child to a stranger.
I’d love to be wrong, but I get worried whenever laws are written using language that isn’t explicitly doing what it claims to do.
4 Likes
I suspect it would require states to regard as valid child marriages which are valid in the marriage issuing state, but if you take a minor across state lines in order to enter into such a marriage, then that runs afoul of federal law.
4 Likes
There’s no need for the /s. At least one Republican (I don’t remember who and I don’t care to look it up) recently stated he thought Loving v Virginia should be overturned and interracial marriage left up to the states.
3 Likes
Yeah, it’s almost like the concept of “states’ rights” is a big old pile of nonsensical fascist horse apples that can be used to argue either side of most questions. You might also wonder what’s so great about states having rights if those come at the direct expense of, you know, human rights.
8 Likes
Well hell, it’s not like you’re taking them across the state lines for an abortion or something. 
6 Likes
So if the parents take the kid to the wedding in child-bride state it’s okay?
I’m probably more paranoid than I need to be, since the scenario I’m imagining could probably happen today (and probably does!)
If you have Netflix, watch Keep Sweet, Pray and Obey. Otherwise look up the case on Wiki.
I just read the text of the act, and it’s incorrect to say it safeguards “the right to same-sex marriage nationwide” as the post describes. If a state outlaws same-sex marriage, it will be illegal to enter into such a marriage in that state.
What it does is say that if your marriage is legal in the state where you got hitched, than no state can deny you any rights & protections afforded in that state, nor any federal rights & protections.
So it’s not codifying Obergefell v. Hodges into law, but it does repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act which says states can ignore marriages performed in other states if they wanna.
Which is progress, but nationwide right to same-sex marriages is still at risk if Obergefell is overturned.
12 Likes
or not paranoid enough. this supreme court will take away the right of same sex couples to marry, it’s only a matter of when.
this bill doesn’t need to solve all of society’s ills. it needs only to protect the rights that every adult should be entitled to.
( and if you do need to “think of the children”, think of the children of same sex spouses and what nullifying their parent’s marriage would do to them )
2 Likes
It’s a start.
4 Likes
