in a surprising display of actual bipartisanship in the Senate of all
places.
The respect for Marriage Act has passed 62 to 37
meaning that the vote easily passes the legislative
filibuster in the upper chamber in the Senate.
Now, here's what the bill entails.
Okay, there are caveats here.
While I want to be celebratory, while I want to feel good about this, I have some
major problems with the way the Senate version of the bill was written.
The respect for Marriage Act would require that people be considered married
in any state, as long as the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.
Okay, we're gonna pause right there.
Okay, let's come back to me.
Let's come back to me.
So, if you're living in one of these red states that likes to punish its
constituents by passing, you know, anti same sex marriage laws, well,
you wouldn't be able to get married in those states should this conservative
Supreme Court decide to reverse the Supreme Court ruling earlier back in 2012,
that legalize same sex marriage federally, right?
So if they reverse it, and this legislation comes into play,
what it would mean is some states could still ban same sex marriage.
You would just need to go to a state that has not banned same sex marriage,
get married there and then the backward state that you live in would
have no choice but to recognize your same sex marriage.
So there's a lot of this state's rights language in in the way that
this was written, it's still some protection for same sex marriage.
So I'll take it.
But these caveats do make me incredibly uncomfortable.
Let's get to the rest of it.
The bill would also repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act Good,
which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allowed
states to decline to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.
That part, I'm totally in favor of the law has remained on the books by
the way that defense of Marriage act, despite being declared National by
the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell vs Hodges.
Okay, so that was the Supreme Court ruling earlier in 2012,
that legalized same sex marriage.
Now, the Republicans who voted for
this bill should probably get a little bit of a shout out,
especially since there was a tremendous amount of pressure among conservative
media pundits to vote against this legislation and they voted for it anyway.
So that includes a lot of people, I don't like to be honest with you, but
nonetheless, you've got Roy blunt, Richard, burr, Shelley moore, Capito,
Susan Collins, Cynthia, Loomis rob Portman dan Sullivan mitt Romney,
Thom Tillis lisa murkowski, Joni ernst todd Young.
It is notable that, you know,
even though democrats have such a slim majority in Congress.
Certainly that's the case with the Senate.
They found a way to make this happen when it came to same sex marriage and
we should celebrate that.
That's a good thing, but when they had a supermajority under the Obama
administration, certainly in the first two years of his administration,
they just they just couldn't they couldn't pass protections for
reproductive rights on a federal level.
They just couldn't do it.
They couldn't do it.
You know, it was the blue dog democrats.
They had such a difficult time with that.
Anyway.
Clearly they weren't interested in codifying abortion rights and
Obama ran on it.
And then immediately, as soon as he got elected said it wasn't a priority.
It's not a priority at this time.
Okay, great.
Further reinforcing what I had already come to believe,
which is that when it comes to women, they're usually not first in line,
they're not considered a priority when it comes to these types of issues, right?
So forced birth, forced pregnancy.
I mean, they just don't have the will to fight, you know,
to prevent that from happening to us.
And I'm specifically talking about democrats here.
Nonetheless, let's move on.
Let's let's go back to celebrating some protection for same sex marriage.
There are some downsides here though.
For instance, Senator rob Portman noted that the bill would not
require any state to perform same sex marriages if it chooses not to,
which I think is unsurprising.
Considering, you know, should the Supreme Court reversed a previous Supreme Court
ruling that legalized same sex marriage, you know nationally.
Well, yeah, I mean, according to this legislation, some states can just
outright ban same sex marriage, but they would have to recognize same sex marriage
if the couple ended up getting married in a state that has it legalized.
And to be clear, this bill does not codify Obergefell v Hodges.
It just doesn't Okay, because if it did codify it,
then same sex marriage would be legal.
It would be the law of the land.
No state could ban it.
And to be quite honest, I see same sex marriage as a civil rights issue.
And when it comes to civil rights issues,
the federal government should offer protections for people.
Okay, So think about it.
We consider it a civil rights issue in terms of people of color, right?
Businesses, for instance, are not allowed to discriminate against individuals based
on the color of their skin, based on their race.
And that's because they of of federal protections,
federal protections that ensure that this type of discrimination is unacceptable.
This bill, by the way that just passed in the Senate also protects
interracial marriage, which, I mean, it's 2022.
Great. I mean,
the fact that we even need to do this at this point in time is insane.
But at least it mentions it.
And we have some protections for interracial marriage.
But nonetheless, just going back to the same sex marriage,
we're talking about individuals who identify as gay.
It's not like they made a decision to identify that way?
And if they did make a decision, they deserve protections anyway.
But nonetheless why are we treating gay people differently from black people,
women and any other group that's considered marginalized vulnerable to,
you know, right wing culture war antics?
Why is same sex marriage different?
Why aren't there real federal protections for same sex marriage?
Because here you have all these caveats.
And I see this as a civil rights issue where gay people deserve the same type of
protections that black people do that.
Asians and Latinos do that.
Everyone, you know, has protection against discrimination from
that has protections against discrimination.
But let me give you some more.
So the Senate also voted on an amended version of this bill because the House of
Representatives had passed a far better version of this legislation previously.
And so senators agreed to add language to the Senate version,
ensuring that churches, universities and
other nonprofit religious organizations could not lose tax exempt status or
other benefits for refusing to recognize same sex marriages and
could not be required to provide services for the celebration of any marriage.
They also added language to make clear that the bill does not require or
authorize the federal government to recognize polygamous marriages or
Yeah, so yeah, marriages between multiple people, polygamists.
Yeah. Anyway, look,
I just want these politicians to explain to me why gay couples are being
treated differently when it comes to potential discrimination from
other groups that have federal protections against discrimination.
I want to understand why they don't see this as a civil rights issue.
I just want that explanation.
And more importantly, since, you know, capitol Hill wouldn't
allow someone like me to be anywhere near these members of Congress or
these senators to ask these questions.
I just want, I want a reporter to ask.
I mean there there over there in Capitol Hill asking the same boring questions over
and over again, ask them why they see gay individuals differently from other,
you know, historically disenfranchised groups of people who currently
do have federal protections, who get to enjoy certain civil rights.
Why isn't this considered a civil rights issue?
I'm just curious about that.
But the fact that this offers some protection against what could happen
with this highly conservative Supreme Court makes me feel a little bit better.
I just wish the original version of this bill was the version that the Senate had
voted in favor of in a bipartisan fashion.
They did not, they added all these caveats.
So now in order for this legislation to pass, it needs to be sent to the house,
the House needs to vote on it.
And then, as early as next week it could be passed into law.
And so again, there, there are some benefits here.
I don't want to downplay it or undermine that, but
there are also some flaws that I think we should have a sober look at and
ask some real questions about, because again, I do see this as a civil rights
issue that deserves the same protections that other groups enjoy in this country.
And I just No 1's asking why gay couples are being treated differently.