A Big Win For Equality
Today, the United States Senate voted 62-37 to codify marriage equality into federal law, and to overturn the Defense Of Marriage Act from the 1990s which did the opposite. DOMA has already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but as we've all seen, rights guaranteed by one Supreme Court can be chucked out the window by subsequent Supreme Courts. So today's vote on the Respect For Marriage Act was important, and not merely symbolic.
Gay marriage used to be a big wedge issue for the right. That's where DOMA came from in the first place, after all. It was a convenient political wedge to use against Democrats -- who were very timid about supporting gay marriage for a very long time. Please recall that Barack Obama didn't support gay marriage when he got elected in 2008 -- which wasn't all that long ago.
But support among the public has gone through an astonishing change in a relatively short period of time too. When DOMA was passed, almost 70 percent of the public did not approve of gay marriage. Now 71 percent do. The crossover -- where more people supported it than not -- happened during Obama's term. That is a jaw-dropping turnaround in public attitude. Even the Mormon church voiced support for the bill that passed today -- which is pretty astonishing as well, considering how fervently they fought against the idea for so long.
What used to be a solid Republican position on the issue ("I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman") is now increasingly untenable. Over half (55 percent) of all Republican voters now support marriage equality. And that number is just going to grow, because of the generational aspect of it. While only 30 percent of Republicans 65 years old or older support gay marriage, an astonishing 64 percent of 18-to-29 year old Republicans do. The old attitudes are dying off, quite literally.
Even so, only 12 of the 50 Republican senators could bring themselves to vote for the bill. Three-quarters of them voted against it, in other words. But don't look for many of them to make it a big campaign issue any time soon, because even the Republicans who are still against gay marriage have learned it's not politically wise to boast about that position anymore. That right there is a big change. It's gone from an issue the GOP put onto as many ballots as possible to boost their own turnout to a subject they'd now really rather not even discuss. Even the opposition to today's vote couched their complaints very carefully, by pretending to object "because it is unnecessary to pass such a bill." In other words, nobody's challenged it yet in the Supreme Court, so why worry?
Given the Supreme Court we currently have, there is plenty of cause for worry, of course. Which is why today's vote is so meaningful. It will be a big victory to put the bill onto Joe Biden's desk for his signature. Biden himself deserves credit on the issue, for coming out in support of marriage equality while Obama's vice president -- before Obama "evolved" to the same position. The bill only needs one more vote in the Senate (which will only require a simple majority, not 60) and then it'll be whisked through the House so Biden can sign it before Christmas.
This is a big political victory for Democrats, but sadly it appears as if it will be the only big victory on basic rights they manage to get done. Other issues (such as voting rights and abortion rights) didn't make it through, due to two intransigent Democratic senators refusing to alter the filibuster rules. And if the House goes Republican (as expected), then nothing is going to get done on any of it for the next two years. Republicans may even attempt to pass a national abortion ban in the House, which will then die in the Senate.
Still, while there's always a "what could have been," moving forward on codifying basic rights is the right thing to do. Democrats had 50 years in which they could have passed the protections in Roe v. Wade into federal law, and they didn't. The message of the Dobbs decision is that we cannot rely on the federal courts to protect our rights. Congress must do the hard work of passing such rights into law.
Within a few weeks, the Respect For Marriage Act will be federal law. Gay couples will be able to rest assured that the right to marry will not be whisked away from them by an antediluvian court. The politics of supporting marriage equality have changed so radically and rapidly that this is hardly even a contentious political issue any more. This is, in fact, the total surrender in one of the "culture wars." Marriage equality won. It won big. It won the hearts and minds of seven in ten Americans. Opposition to it is now a losing argument to make in politics. Opposition to it is, in fact, seen as nothing short of sheer bigotry. That is progress.
The lame-duck Congress has a lot to accomplish. They've got to get things in order so that the next Congress won't be able to cause much damage. They've got to pass what they can of Joe Biden's agenda before the end of the year, because a Republican House isn't going to pass any of it. But it was heartening to see quick action on marriage equality leading the way. It was also heartening to see 12 Republicans vote for it.
Times have changed. Democrats have changed with them. Even one-fourth of Republicans have now seen the light. With all that is negative about politics, sometimes it is worth taking the time to celebrate the good things that occasionally get accomplished in Washington. The Respect For Marriage Act is definitely one of them.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Yes, leading with Marriage Equality speaks well for the Dems.
But Bernie is right — none of this matters if the Dem’s Donor Class doesn’t sign off on raising taxes on the rich. Michale, where else are we gonna get the bread if not from the bastards who never needed a tax cut in the first place?
CW,
I am grateful for your support on this topic, but please try to use "marriage equality" and not "gay marriage" when discussing the subject. A big part of the fight has been to get people to recognize that there is no such thing as "str8 marriage" or "gay marriage"... there is only "marriage"!
R
@r,
I think that's part of the point. The issue used to be framed differently, and part of winning the cultural battle was winning the battle over which language is used to name it.
Yo, of course it's nothing MORE OR LESS than marriage equality. Thing of it is, marriage is NOT RELIGIOUS but rather a BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT whereupon two social security numbers agree to become as one. That's why a couple doesn't need a church, hello.
Yep, it's like pretending that UNBORN BABY makes any sense as use of the English language. What is the point of debating anyone who cannot agree on what words mean?
Pretty pitiful for Michale, that he has to pretend that words don't mean what they mean.
I probably won't get gay married, but I'm glad that I could. A good day. In fact, Gov Beshear (D-KY) waved his magic wand and legalized medical marahoona too. I do like medicine.
Will the extremist Q-nut party try to take our rights away?
Ouch!
NY Post this evening,
FLORIDA MAN MAKES ANNOUNCEMENT -- Page 26
Ready to bail on Trump yet, Michale? Will you even remember your Dear Leader? That you equated hating Trump with hating America -- Seig Heil! Do you even remotely give a fuck that all that pre-election trash talk makes you look like, less than prophetic?
Why shouldn't I scroll through your uselessness? I dont get what it is that you offer here: OR, is this what you consider OWNING THE LIBS? If so, do you get a little micro-boner when you OWN THE LIBS?
Signed --
Unclear on the concept of OWNING anyone.
(thinking)
I mean, besides my White Slaver TALL SKINNY WHITE GIRLS WITH BIG BRAINS AND A BIG HEART AND LITTLE BOOBS AND A LITTLE BUTT fantasy. But, enough about me. What were we talking about, again?
[7]
Will the extremist Q-nut party try to take our rights away?
Well, of course they will, you Big Silly!
Otherwise they will have LOST the battle of Good versus Evil, no?
[7]
John From Censornati wrote:
I probably won't get gay married, but I'm glad that I could.
Me, too Buddy. Especially in light of all them tall skinny white girls with big brains and...ahem...
Wha' broke my heart to date. Jezebels, all of them! Woody Allen was right: bisexuality DOUBLES yer chances of a date on Saturday night, a-yup.
@caddy,
That's awfully specific...
Sorry. Disregard last transmission.
Sometimes I feel like you guys are my family and stuff
G'nite, y'all. (1:57)
Didn't leave nobody but the baby/O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Going back to the Republicans in disarray column, I understand Pramila Jayapal has come up with Republicans in ruin.
Still, while there's always a "what could have been," moving forward on codifying basic rights is the right thing to do. Democrats had 50 years in which they could have passed the protections in Roe v. Wade into federal law, and they didn't. The message of the Dobbs decision is that we cannot rely on the federal courts to protect our rights.
Not factually accurate, since there never existed a federal right to killing one's unborn baby..
JFC,
Pretty pitiful for Michale, that he has to pretend that words don't mean what they mean.
Says the guy who supports the Party that actually tries to CHANGE the definitions of words to fit their political agenda..
Says the guy who supports the Party that once said, "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
:eyeroll:
1/20
MC,
Pretty pitiful for Michale, that he has to pretend that words don't mean what they mean.
You mean, like what 'marriage' actually means..
Until Democrats' political agenda demanded EVERYONE to pretend marriage means something it doesn't..
You mean, like that??
:eyeroll:
I really don't have a problem with gay marriage.. None at all..
But here again is ANOTHER perfect example of Democrats demanding that society accepts THEIR ideologically based beliefs..
The fact that Democrats, as a Party, are so insecure in their beliefs that they must demand that society accepts and constantly re-enforces Democrats and their beliefs would seem to indicate that their beliefs are not morally or ethically acceptable..
Given the Democrat Party's on-going acceptance of blatant systemic/institutionalized racism and systemic/institutionalized bigotry...
It's obvious that Democrats' insecurities are well founded and based in reality...
2/20
Even so, only 12 of the 50 Republican senators could bring themselves to vote for the bill. Three-quarters of them voted against it, in other words. But don't look for many of them to make it a big campaign issue any time soon, because even the Republicans who are still against gay marriage have learned it's not politically wise to boast about that position anymore.
Oh, I disagree. In fact, based on history, I expect we'll find that quite a number of them will run even further to the right and attempt to primary incumbent Republicans on this issue as well as others.
Turns out, they are slow to recognize that multiple of their Christian nationalist positions are now serving as huge turn-offs to entire generations of voters, but will it really deter them? Oh, hell no... because bigotry is a huge selling point with their base and always has been. Coming soon to a primary near you, incumbent "Republicans" will face primary challenges by Christian nationalists because: Since when have we not known the right-wing extremists to double down?
Witness Trump's full embrace of the right-wingnut Q-Anon crazies because he's literally got nowhere else to go, and there literally is no bottom.
So, to recap: You're the GOP and you've allowed yourself to become dependent on liars, deniers, conspiracy theorists, zealots, and extremists with multiple political views out of America's mainstream so what do you do? You double down full steam ahead because you've literally got nowhere else to go. Eventually, the Trumptanic will hit the proverbial wall, list, break in half, and sink under its own weight.
Mezzomamma
16
Going back to the Republicans in disarray column, I understand Pramila Jayapal has come up with Republicans in ruin.
Ruin? Oh, come on. Can't y'all Democrats do better than that?
Republicans in Residue
Trumplicans in Toilet
Death Cult in Disorder
marriage: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. (merriam-webster.com)
i.e. marriage is whatever the law says it is. a hundred thirty-two years ago was the first time polygamy was nationally outlawed as a legal condition for marriage. until 1996, the nation's laws had no position about the sex or gender of the married people, so it was up to the individual states.
marriage: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. (merriam-webster.com)
And the date of that particular definition?? :D
24 Mar 2009...
Funny how that is, eh?? :D Right at the height of Democrat hysterical activism... :D
Here is ANOTHER definition of marriage..
the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).
-OXFORD
a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any)
-BRITANNICA
You see the problem??
You are simply proving my point for me..
When a definition doesn't work with Democrat ideology, Democrats change the definition..
In the case of 'marriage', 24 Mar 2009...
See also GENDER...
It's like when real science doesn't work with Democrat ideology.. Democrats create Democrat "science"..
See GLOBAL WARMING, GENDER DYSPHORIA, etc etc etc..
It's ideologically driven "truth".. NOT fact..
i.e. marriage is whatever the law says it is.
EXCEPT if Democrats don't like what the law says... :^/
3/20
John From Censornati
21
Death Cult in Disorder
Yes, sir, and they seem to be in a perpetual state of denial too.
The repetitive ignorance to deny that something that definitely existed was never in existence is about as dirt-level dumb as it gets... but wait, there's more... and it's so bottom-dwelling stupid that it requires a shovel and some furious digging.
Trump too shall pass, and the death cult righties will deny he ever existed. "He was a Democrat, not one of us," they'll say, but make no mistake: Trump effing owns every ignorant one of them; they're just too daft to know it.
Jesse Benton (Rant Paul's nephew-in-law) was pardoned by Fat Donny in 2020 for some crimes he committed. Today, he was found guilty of facilitating an illegal foreign campaign donation.
"The evidence at trial showed Benton bought a $25,000 ticket to a September 2016 Republican National Committee (RNC) event on behalf of Roman Vasilenko, a Russian naval officer turned multilevel marketer."
No collusion!
Michale
23
You see the problem??
I definitely see the problem. You seem to have this ridiculous habit of assuming that every legal definition that doesn't meet with your political or ideological approval is due solely to Democrats, and that's laughably and hysterically incorrect.
Roe v. Wade was decided by a majority of Republicans. Henry Menasco Wade, you see, was a Democrat, and speaking from personal experience regarding Mr. Wade a.k.a. "the Chief"... oh, nevermind, I'll just keep that nugget to myself.
As for Obergefell v. Hodges, it was Justice Anthony Kennedy (R) who authored the majority opinion holding that state bans of marriage of a male to another male and a female to another female are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the clauses of Due Process and Equal Protection. Kennedy was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. So then, not all Democrats.
Sorry to burst your uninformed bubble, but facts can be such pesky little things.
John From Censornati
25
Yes, sir. Guilty on all 6 counts.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1434226/download
i could go on and on about the history of marriage. until the mid twentieth century it was common practice (not to mention fully legal) to marry one's first cousin. there are all sorts of norms and rules that have changed over time, which in this day and age would be considered horrific. wedding someone of a different skin color wasn't just frowned upon, it was strictly illegal. either we accept that norms change with the times, or we embrace all the awfulness in the history of marriage, of which there is plenty.
i could go on and on about the history of marriage.
As could I.. But there has been ONE constant....
A man and a woman..
Now, a woman can marry a banana and Democrats want to call that "marriage"...
Leave it to Democrats to destroy and denigrate ANOTHER long standing institution.. :eyeroll:
either we accept that norms change with the times,
The problem is, it's DEMOCRAT changes that are being imposed..
Michale
29
As could I.. But there has been ONE constant....
A man and a woman..
Incorrect.
Now, a woman can marry a banana and Democrats want to call that "marriage"...
Hysterically ignorant straw man fallacy.
Leave it to Democrats to destroy and denigrate ANOTHER long standing institution.. :eyeroll:
Also laughably incorrect.
The problem is, it's DEMOCRAT changes that are being imposed..
Oh, I've got really bad news for you: The origins of not everything are under the control of Democrats or even the United States.
__________________________
Marriage by persons of the same sex has been legal nationwide since:
04/01/2001 ... Netherlands
06/01/2003 ... Belgium
07/20/2005 ... Canada
07/05/2005 ... Spain
11/30/2006 ... South Africa
01/01/2009 ... Norway
05/01/2009 ... Sweden
06/05/2010 ... Portugal
06/27/2010 ... Iceland
07/22/2010 ... Argentina
05/16/2013 ... Brazil
05/18/2013 ... France
08/05/2013 ... Uruguay
08/19/2013 ... New Zealand
01/01/2015 ... Luxembourg
06/26/2015 ... United States
You are dang close to Cuba, why don't you TYA down there?
Oh, wait:
09/27/2022 ... Cuba
__________________________
If I was one of those Americans who whined incessantly/obsessively that everything under the sun was the fault of Democrats, I'd probably blame my limited education... except for the obvious fact that I'd be too daft to understand how patently ridiculous I actually sounded... but I'm not... so I don't.
So, to recap: You can laughably and hysterically blame Democrats for everything or, better yet, it isn't illegal (yet) to crack a book.