Respect for Marriage Act

[d4m10n]

I'm not seeing anywhere in the constitution where congress can make laws on marriage. Is this one of those things that has been interpreted into the constitution?

The bill was drafted so as to invoke the Full Faith and Credit Clause^WP.

ETA: Some scholarly explanation has been provided by Ilya Somin:

While states may not be required to recognize out of state marriages by virtue of the FFC Clause taken alone, there is a much stronger case that Congress can use its powers under the Clause to require them to do so.

 

[psionl0]

Is this a joke? Do you see anywhere where they can make laws on drugs? On speed limits on roads? On seat belts or air bags or mercury or sealions?

No, no, no no, no and no.

As far as speed limits go, I understand that the congress couldn't set speed limits but (thanks to the power of the purse) they could withhold funds to states that didn't impose a 55 mph speed limit.

 

[psionl0]

The bill was drafted so as to invoke the Full Faith and Credit Clause^WP.

That might mean that states must recognize same sex marriages in other states but that sounds a long way from congress making laws that make it legal for same sex marriages in all states.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Ken Hamm, or was it Kent Hovind? Can't remember which, but the idiot that onws the Arc Experience "museum" in Kentucky is from Australia.

I don't know if that means the Ozzies threw him out or if he's a scout for the Australian fundamentalist loons...

I suspect the difference is that Australia never had a major political party court Christian fundamentalists quite the way the Republican Party has for the last 40+ years.

 

[Segnosaur]

The problem is, even if it passes, there is a very good chance that the supreme court will STILL find a way to rule against it. (Probably under the banner of "states rights"... i.e. "marriage was at one time sanctioned by the states so we must revert back to those days")

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah. That's where all this ends. The SCOTUS cannot be wrong on a legal/government/Constitutional level about what the Constitution says. There's no check and balance in place for "A Majority of Members of SCOTUS are part of a Death Cult."

If Trump's hand picked toadies say the Constitution says Wednesday has always come AFTER Thursday that's the reality as the far as the government is concerned.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah. That's where all this ends. The SCOTUS cannot be wrong on a legal/government/Constitutional level about what the Constitution says. There's no check and balance in place for "A Majority of Members of SCOTUS are part of a Death Cult."

Well there is, court packing or impeachment would be solutions to SCOTUS.

 

[d4m10n]

That might mean that states must recognize same sex marriages in other states but that sounds a long way from congress making laws that make it legal for same sex marriages in all states.

That is correct, according to Ilya Somin.

It's worth emphasizing that Section 4 avoids federalism problems in large part because it does not actually compel states to recognize same-sex marriages, or indeed any other kind of marriages. It just says that if a state does recognize them, the federal government will, as well. In that respect, it falls short of offering the degree of protection for same-sex marriage that currently exists under Obergefell.

So it's not a perfect fix, but at least it offers some protection. Haven't found any commentary on what would happen if a state attempted to nullify earlier marriages post-hoc, but I expect that would be found unconstitutional on other grounds.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yeah. That's where all this ends. The SCOTUS cannot be wrong on a legal/government/Constitutional level about what the Constitution says. There's no check and balance in place for "A Majority of Members of SCOTUS are part of a Death Cult."

Well there is, court packing or impeachment would be solutions to SCOTUS.

Except of course the little issue that the supreme court is approving all sorts of dirty tricks (voter suppression, gerrymandering) that help keep the republicans in power, preventing the democrats from having the ability to pack the court.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because the Democrats continue to refuse to understand that THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL BATTLE.

It's a battle of wills and they ALWAYS blink first.

Republicans openly go "We aren't going to follow the rules because we're the bad guys, you have to follow the rules because you are the good guys" and Democrats keep going "Yep, that makes sense, that's how it works."

That's why every plan the Democrats have is to keep using the system the Republicans have already taken control AND made clear they won't follow anymore than they have to.

"But the rules say if this happens you have to do this!"

 

[Donal]

It's not even that the Democrats won't break the rules. They are abiding by a bunch of traditions and policies that aren't actual rules. They are basically just courtesies they extend the GOP that the GOP never returns. There are things the Democrats can do that are legal and within the rules, but they are afraid that it might be seen as a dirty trick.

Or the stupidest excuse, "the Republicans might do it when they get power."

 

[Brainster]

What can be done legislatively can be undone legislatively. Still, I'd call this a step in the right direction.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Because they're hoping it will just go away. That the GOP will have won enough that they'll get tired of cheating, and things can settle back down to normal. The old boring neoliberal grift. The way it used to be. The way the GOP keeps telling them they want too, every time the Democrats are in power.

They've just gotta keep kicking that football, Lucy's promised them this time for sure.

 

[d4m10n]

Because the Democrats continue to refuse to understand that THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL BATTLE.

Count me among the Democrats this time around, since getting a bill passed through the Senate is almost the definition of a political battle.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's not even that the Democrats won't break the rules. They are abiding by a bunch of traditions and policies that aren't actual rules.

Yeah but that's sorta (not exactly, there's nuance in there) the difference between governing and politics.

The traditions and unspoken agreements and and back alley deals and quid-pro-quo and all that isn't dirty politics, it IS politics.

And, Elephant in the room, does anyone really, truly think that the Democrats really are this scared to "get dirty" or is it just a way for them to manufacture a moral victory out of a loss after the fact like... most of the time.

 

[dudalb]

Because they're hoping it will just go away. That the GOP will have won enough that they'll get tired of cheating, and things can settle back down to normal. The old boring neoliberal grift. The way it used to be. The way the GOP keeps telling them they want too, every time the Democrats are in power.

They've just gotta keep kicking that football, Lucy's promised them this time for sure.

I wonder at times who you hate more, the Dems or the GOP.

 

[dudalb]

I am no libertarian, but I think they have the right idea when it comes to marraige:Get Government out of the Marraige business altoghther. Instead have "Civil Unions" which are contracts between the parties outlining their legal obligations to each other and any offspring, without any religious angle, and leave Marraige to private instiutions

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am no libertarian, but I think they have the right idea when it comes to marraige:Get Government out of the Marraige business altoghther. Instead have "Civil Unions" which are contracts between the parties outlining their legal obligations to each other and any offspring, without any religious angle, and leave Marraige to private instiutions

Are we getting rid of marriage Visas or allowing that status to be worked into any contract?

Marriage does all kinds of things one can not legally do in a contract.

 

[wareyin]

I am no libertarian, but I think they have the right idea when it comes to marraige:Get Government out of the Marraige business altoghther. Instead have "Civil Unions" which are contracts between the parties outlining their legal obligations to each other and any offspring, without any religious angle, and leave Marraige to private instiutions

Marriage (I just went to one this past weekend) "I do", "I do", officiant files a certificate, aaaaaannd done! Poof, married! (That is literally all that is required for the state of GA at least)

Contracts outlining legal obligations...yeah, something like a mortgage where you sit in an office going over line after line, sign here, initial here, can we make an addendum there? How ******* romantic!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Marriage is a pretty archaic concept that I think government should drop entirely outside of the purely legal aspects of it, as in as far as the government is concerned "marriage" should be no more than basically a slightly more robust power of attorney. It should cover shared property, coinhabiting, all that but not say or mean squat as to "love."

But as long as it is a thing, gay marriage should be equal to straight marriage, across the board with no if, ands, buts, or "Okay but what if we call it civil blah blah blah instead..."