Respect for Marriage Act

[Donal]

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.

I think it depends on who specifically we're talking about. Some of them are totally and genuinely married to the idea of "following the process". As long as they did things "the right way", they won.

Others use it to console themselves and their constituents after getting robbed yet again.

Still, others use it as cover to stop real change at the behest of their owners...er donors.

 

[smartcooky]

I haven't look at or crunched the numbers but I wouldn't be like super-shocked if abortion is "more popular" (as nebulous and inexact as that concept is in a political sense) than gay marriage.

https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls...poll-the-overturning-of-roe-v-wade-june-2022/

The numbers firmly support abortion rights and are firmly against SCOTUS ruling

55% mostly support abortion rights

56% oppose (and 40% support) the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
- includes 45% who say they strongly oppose the decision.

56% are concerned that the Supreme Court’s decision could also jeopardize the rights to contraception, same-sex marriage, or same-sex relationships. - - includes a 42% plurality who are very concerned that the Court will use the decision to reconsider other previous rulings.


57% think the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was politically motivated (and 36% do not).

62% of registered voters say the Supreme Court’s decision will make them more likely to vote in this year’s midterm elections

51% of voters nationally say the Supreme Court’s decision will make them more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who would back a law that would restore the protections of Roe.

 

[Segnosaur]

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

Seems like that argument comes up quite commonly every time the topic of gay marriage comes up.

How are you defining "civil unions"? Is it the functional equivalent of what the government currently sees as "marriage", or just a simple legal agreement that will vary with the people involved?

The problem is, marriage (recognized by the government) is ingrained into society... it impacts things such as taxes, inheritance, immigration, medical care, etc.. Some of those could be covered via some sort of legal person-to-person contract but not all. (And there is no guarantee that any contract will handle all the needed eventualities.)

Having a standard government-recognized "spouse" just simplifies so much for so many people. Someone in a coma and you need to decide to pull the plug? Ask the spouse. Need to include a partner on your health insurance? See if they are legally a spouse. (Otherwise the insurance company might try to screw with you.) Tax time? You can do split income. Want to move to another country? Many countries allow an immigrant to bring a "spouse", but it probably helps if its a government marriage.

Without that you get a bunch of people with contracts, each probably worded differently, that may or may not cover a specific issue that might come up. A boon for lawyers. Everyone else, not so much.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Having a standard government-recognized "spouse" just simplifies so much for so many people.

Yeah and other relationships should have the same.

You should not have to pretend someone is your soulmate and "swear" you're going be with them for the rest of your life and love only them to share insurance or coinhabitate or anything else married people enjoy.

"Marriage" isn't some magical special type of interpersonal relationship that deserve special and unique recognition above all else.

 

[Stacyhs]

The only people who don't support same-sex marriage are homophobes and those who base their objection on religion which is homophobic itself.

 

[Segnosaur]

Having a standard government-recognized "spouse" just simplifies so much for so many people.

Yeah and other relationships should have the same.

You should not have to pretend someone is your soulmate and "swear" you're going be with them for the rest of your life and love only them to share insurance or coinhabitate or anything else married people enjoy.

"Marriage" isn't some magical special type of interpersonal relationship that deserve special and unique recognition above all else.

Who claimed it was some sort of "magical type of relationship"?

My support for the concept for government-sanctioned marriage is pragmatic. It is not perfect, but it will work well enough for the majority of people in a way that makes their lives better. It reduces the number of 'cracks' in the system that cases can fall through.

Yes, there are ways the system can be abused, but the same goes for every potential arrangement. And those who feel that "marriage doesn't work for them" can still enter contractual agreements with others, if they want them to inherit property/make end of life decisions/etc.

 

[d4m10n]

"Marriage" isn't some magical special type of interpersonal relationship that deserve special and unique recognition above all else.

I'm going to have to disagree on this one.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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

To stick with my analogy, getting fed up with Charlie Brown's gullibility doesn't mean you're taking Lucy's side.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

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..."

From the government's perspective, that is basically how it is now.

The two parties signed and submitted the form. They really don't particularly care whether they are soul mates in love or making a pragmatic legal/economic decision.

It should not be entered into lightly, of course, because it does expose one to possible shenanigans by the other party, dissolving it can be expensive and dicey, etc.

The rest is a bunch of emotional significance people attach to it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

From the government's perspective, that is basically how it is now.

The two parties signed and submitted the form. They really don't particularly care whether they are soul mates in love or making a pragmatic legal/economic decision.

Unless it involves one of them's immigration status. Then, suddenly, the government becomes super concerned about whether it's True Love or not.

 

[smartcooky]

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

We have Civil Unions here. They are government sanctioned between two consenting adults regardless of gender.

People in civil unions have the same government-recognized marital rights as marriages. In essence, the documentation is blind to whether the couple is in a civil union or a marriage.

We didn't get there without a bit of a struggle though. We have some noisy, black-shirted religious thugs from the "Destiny Church"* (a hard-right fundy Christian mob run by a scumbag called Brian Tamati. They stirred up a bit of a ruckus over it.

* For the observant, you might notice these are same scumbags who formed part of the so-called "Freedom Alliance" that kicked up a stink over the vaccine mandates.

 

[psionl0]

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

I think it is the dissolution of marriages rather than the marriages themselves that create the legal issues.

Sure, you could have boilerplate contracts that deal with property distributions and future obligations in the event of a dissolution of a marriage but for historical reasons (and because politicians want to hang on to power), governments reserve the right to make and amend laws that apply to divorces.

 

[catsmate]

Well I think most of society has evolved sufficiently enough to see this get through. But I am still not confident.

US "society" is not reflected by the habits of US politicians.

 

[catsmate]

There is a good chance that the bill will falter, as it has on four previous occasions.

That said public opinion on the issue has shifted significantly, so who knows?

"Public opinion" also supports access to safe and legal abortion.
How did that work out?

 

[d4m10n]

"Public opinion" also supports access to safe and legal abortion.

Supreme Court justices don't need to bother themselves with public opinion. Congressmembers typically want to be reelected every 2 years; Senators every 6.

 

[Segnosaur]

Supreme Court justices don't need to bother themselves with public opinion. Congressmembers typically want to be reelected every 2 years; Senators every 6.

Congresscritters are also more interested in what happens in their own states/districts. Even if abortion or gay marriage is popular nationally, a congresscritter has to decide "how do my local voters, in a deep-red southern state, feel about it".

You also have other issues: the optics of "siding with the democrats" (republicans want to minimize their successes and make them the "do nothing" party), who your election resources come from (i.e. if evangelical christians donate more to the republican party than others they will have more influence), and just how significant the issue is to a specific voter (i.e. they might think "christian nut-jobs really hate the gays, but people supporting gay rights care more about things like the economy")

 

[wareyin]

Congresscritters are also more interested in what happens in their own states/districts. Even if abortion or gay marriage is popular nationally, a congresscritter has to decide "how do my local voters, in a deep-red southern state, feel about it".

You also have other issues: the optics of "siding with the democrats" (republicans want to minimize their successes and make them the "do nothing" party), who your election resources come from (i.e. if evangelical christians donate more to the republican party than others they will have more influence), and just how significant the issue is to a specific voter (i.e. they might think "christian nut-jobs really hate the gays, but people supporting gay rights care more about things like the economy")

Reps also have the whole "who cares about 'x'? Voters are upset about Biden's high gas prices!" tactic nailed down already.

 

[d4m10n]

https://twitter.com/HRC/status/1552707984706379776

Over 170 businesses are making their voices heard and urging the Senate to safeguard marriage equality nationwide.

We need to protect marriage equality. We need to pass the Respect for Marriage Act. https://t.co/kBSUk7pbH0

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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..."

But…but God!

 

[d4m10n]

Same-Sex Marriage Bill Passes Senate After Bipartisan Breakthrough

The Senate passed landmark legislation on Tuesday to mandate federal recognition for same-sex marriages, as a lame-duck Congress mustered a notable moment of bipartisanship before Democrats were to lose their unified control of Capitol Hill.

The 61-to-36 vote put the bill on track to become law in the final weeks before Republicans assume the majority in the House of Representatives at the start of the new Congress in January.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/us/politics/same-sex-marriage-bill-senate.html