Democrats set votes to protect same-sex marriage and contraception

[Lucidus]

WASHINGTON — The House plans to vote this week to codify same-sex marriage and legal contraception nationwide, fearing that the Supreme Court could rescind those rights after it overturned the constitutional right to abortion last month.

The Democratic-controlled chamber is set to vote Tuesday on the Respect for Marriage Act, which would establish legal protections for marriage between same-sex couples nationwide, according to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office. The House is poised to vote later in the week on the Right to Contraception Act, a bill that would protect access to birth control.

Democratic leaders said they plan to bring those bills to a vote after Justice Clarence Thomas, writing separately in the ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, said the newly conservative Supreme Court should follow its abortion ruling by rescinding Obergefell v. Hodges and Griswold v. Connecticut, which prohibited states from banning gay marriage and contraception, respectively.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democrats in a letter Monday that the House will pass the bills "this week" to enshrine those rights in order “to protect freedom in our nation, as extremist Justices and lawmakers take aim at more of our basic rights.”

The two measures are expected to pass the House with Democratic support — and potentially some Republicans. It's unclear if they can pass the Senate, which is split 50-50 between the two parties and where the bills would need at least 10 GOP votes to defeat a filibuster. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is a co-sponsor of the marriage equality bill, but is the only Republican senator, so far, to champion the bill.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-set-votes-protect-sex-marriage-contraception-fearing-supreme-rcna38760

[*michaelsean*]

As far as contraception, what exactly could the Supreme Court do? I can't picture what the case looks like that they could act upon.

[KillerGoose]

(07-19-2022, 02:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: As far as contraception, what exactly could the Supreme Court do?  I can't picture what the case looks like that they could act upon.

Griswold pertained to the banning "the use of any drug, medical device, or other instrument in furthering contraception".


If this were reversed, it would likely go to the states for legislation. I assume condoms, IUDs, birth control pills and other forms of BC could be banned, if the state decided. Someone correct me if I am wrong here. 

[*Nately120*]

Nothing like sitting on pins and needles wondering if the democrats can pull off a miracle and stop Republicans from doing yet another thing most Americans don't want them to do.

[Lucidus]

(07-19-2022, 03:30 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Nothing like sitting on pins and needles wondering if the democrats can pull off a miracle and stop Republicans from doing yet another thing most Americans don't want them to do.

Even worse, when it comes specifically to banning same-sex marriage; it's not only something that most Americans don't want, but it's something for which there is not a single [even semi-legitimate] argument that wouldn't also apply to heterosexual marriage. 

[*pally*]

(07-19-2022, 02:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: As far as contraception, what exactly could the Supreme Court do?  I can't picture what the case looks like that they could act upon.

IUDs and the day-after pill are major targets for the "pro-birth" crowd.  They act to prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus.  Those types of birth control are considered abortifacients by them. The fight will come in states such as Oklahoma that have laws that have declared life begins at conception (without ever defining conception). IUDs are FDA-approved devices and the day-after pill is available OTC.  IUDs are very effective at preventing pregnancy and have a different side effect profile from birth control pills which some women can not take.  They have the benefit of being long-term implants, unlike a diaphragm which has to be inserted before sexual activity and removed afterward.


The other big way to impact contraception is for a state to pass legislation that requires parental permission for a minor to obtain birth control. Remember pro-birth pushers also have the unrealistic belief that abstinence is the only birth control teenagers need.

If SCOTUS upholds laws such as these, there will be a huge impact on women

I can't see any reason for Obergefell to be overturned. It is less a privacy issue and more an equal protection one. The government should have no interest in preventing marriage between 2 consenting adults regardless of sex. The Constitution allows for states to recognize marriages that legally occurred in other jurisdictions. If one is married in a state that allows for same-sex marriage then even states that don't allow it must recognize the legality of the marriage and afford all of the same protections that all married couples receive. Just like they do when a state allows an underaged girl to get married at 15 and they move to a state that doesn't allow 15-year-olds to marry. The ONLY objections to same-sex marriage are religious nothing in civil law that actually regulates marriage should prevent it under the equal protection clause

[*Nately120*]

(07-19-2022, 03:44 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Even worse, when it comes specifically to banning same-sex marriage; it's not only something that most Americans don't want, but it's something for which there is not a single [even semi-legitimate] argument that wouldn't also apply to heterosexual marriage. 

It's a nice one two punch that the political party that never shuts up about freedom keeps spearheading this stuff. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

If I'm the GOP I'm stymying this in the Senate and then voting it through once they take back at least the House in November. I wouldn't give the Dems any wins at all until after the election. Yes, that's shitty and yes, that's politics.

[*pally*]

(07-19-2022, 04:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If I'm the GOP I'm stymying this in the Senate and then voting it through once they take back at least the House in November.  I wouldn't give the Dems any wins at all until after the election.  Yes, that's shitty and yes, that's politics.

no better way to convince Democratic voters to come out and vote

[Lucidus]

(07-19-2022, 04:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's a nice one two punch that the political party that never shuts up about freedom keeps spearheading this stuff. 

Indeed. 

For a supposed pro-freedom party, they certainly seem to be anti  a lot of things should fall under personal choice:

Abortion
Contraception
Same-sex marriage
Sexual preference
Gender identity
Sodomy

I'm noticing a rather distinct pattern.

[GMDino]

(07-19-2022, 05:51 PM)pally Wrote: no better way to convince Democratic voters to come out and vote

Right?

The republicans will never vote for it anyway...they want to take those rights away from people.

But people like when they play "politics" as longs as its with someone else's rights.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2022, 06:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: But people like when they play "politics" as longs as its with someone else's rights.

Who said they liked it?  Also, can I pretty please get a Dino "thumbs up" response so I can feel like I'm part of the cool kids club? 

[Lucidus]

As someone who's in a same-sex marriage, I appreciate the 47 Republicans who crossed over to vote in the affirmative. Unfortunately, 3/4 were still in opposition, which is still pretty disheartening, no matter how expected.

The House of Representatives passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law. The final vote was bipartisan: 267-157, with 47 Republicans joining Democrats in voting for the legislation. It’s now sent to the Senate

— Annie Grayer (@AnnieGrayerCNN) July 19, 2022

[samhain]

(07-19-2022, 04:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If I'm the GOP I'm stymying this in the Senate and then voting it through once they take back at least the House in November.  I wouldn't give the Dems any wins at all until after the election.  Yes, that's shitty and yes, that's politics.

Probably not appealing to their vocal base who will absolutely hold them accountable for not toeing the line for "Christian" values.  If we've learned anything, it's that there's always someone crazy out there willing to run for office if the current occupants aren't extreme enough.

That said, this is the dems ham-fisted attempt at holding the GOP accountable if/when these current freedoms are abridged by the court in time.  The GOP doesn't have to let this pass, but if they don't, then they're much easier to hang the potential losses of marriage equality and decreased access to contraception on in midterms.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2022, 07:53 PM)Lucidus Wrote: As someone who's in a same-sex marriage, I appreciate the 47 Republicans who crossed over to vote in the affirmative. Unfortunately, 3/4 were still in opposition, which is still pretty disheartening, no matter how expected.

The House of Representatives passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law. The final vote was bipartisan: 267-157, with 47 Republicans joining Democrats in voting for the legislation. It’s now sent to the Senate

— Annie Grayer (@AnnieGrayerCNN) July 19, 2022

I always like to know the entire content of a bill before I get on people for not voting for it.  I will say if it's a straight (no pun intended) codifying of same sex marriage then I would be disappointed by that number as well. 

(07-19-2022, 07:55 PM)samhain Wrote: Probably not appealing to their vocal base who will absolutely hold them accountable for not toeing the line for "Christian" values.  If we've learned anything, it's that there's always someone crazy out there willing to run for office if the current occupants aren't extreme enough.

That said, this is the dems ham-fisted attempt at holding the GOP accountable if/when these current freedoms are abridged by the court in time.  The GOP doesn't have to let this pass, but if they don't, then they're much easier to hang the potential losses of marriage equality and decreased access to contraception on in midterms.

Yeah, you're likely right on the first point, although I would hope it's not nearly as big a deal for their voter base as your stating.  As to your second point, that's also likely correct.  I may be a bit of a Pollyanna on this issue, but I just don't see same sex marriage being overturned by SCOTUS like Roe.  It's on super solid constitutional ground and I don't even know the mental gymnastics needed to state otherwise. 

[Lucidus]

(07-19-2022, 08:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I always like to know the entire content of a bill before I get on people for not voting for it.  I will say if it's a straight (no pun intended) codifying of same sex marriage then I would be disappointed by that number as well. 

The bill would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and then codify same-sex marriage.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2022, 08:21 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The bill would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and then codify same-sex marriage.

Again, and I'm not doubting you, I would want to see the actual bill, because so much extra crap gets snuck into them.  But if you're 100% accurate then my previous statement stands.  


It is interesting to see the names of the people who voted in favor of DoMA.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1042/vote_104_2_00280.htm

[SunsetBengal]

(07-19-2022, 08:21 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The bill would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and then codify same-sex marriage.

Yes, that's the topic that it's being "sold" as, but what other line items are hidden inside?  

That is the problem with many bills in Congress, they get sold as one big, heart jerking main topic, yet when you read the thing you find that it contains mostly items that have little or nothing at all to do with the "main topic".

I, for one, wish that bills would be more transparent, and voted on by an item by item basis.  No need for Congressmen to receive a 1,000 page document, with only 3 days to know what all is inside prior to voting on it.

[Lucidus]

(07-19-2022, 08:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, and I'm not doubting you, I would want to see the actual bill, because so much extra crap gets snuck into them.  But if you're 100% accurate then my previous statement stands.  


It is interesting to see the names of the people who voted in favor of DoMA.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1042/vote_104_2_00280.htm

Respect for Marriage Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404

[Lucidus]

(07-19-2022, 08:40 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yes, that's the topic that it's being "sold" as, but what other line items are hidden inside?  

That is the problem with many bills in Congress, they get sold as one big, heart jerking main topic, yet when you read the thing you find that it contains mostly items that have little or nothing at all to do with the "main topic".

I, for one, wish that bills would be more transparent, and voted on by an item by item basis.  No need for Congressmen to receive a 1,000 page document, with only 3 days to know what all is inside prior to voting on it.

Introduced in House (07/18/2022)

Respect for Marriage Act

This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.

Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)

The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.