I've yet to see an in-depth discussion and I've been watching. You actually have a waiting audience that includes many more than willing to lobby on your behalf, to take up your cause, so?...

but there are already numerous posts berating LGBTQ DUers for expressing their misgivings with the bill. This is addressed to the people trying to exhaust us.

That would be very helpful for DU. Thanks in advance!

The Good:
The bill affords actual protection nationwide that will not be in place if Obergefell is overturned. It requires every state to offer full faith and credit recognition to same-sex marriages, whether or not same-sex marriage is legal in that state.

The Reality:
This is the only form of the bill that could be passed between now and the end of this Congress. I believe even this bill would be DOA under the new Congress.

The Bad:
With the reversal of Obergefell (the intent of which has been expressed by sitting justices) we would lose marriage equality. We currently enjoy marriage equality. We haven't needed to talk about "same-sex marriage" because for everyone there was just "marriage". This carves out and segregates "same-sex marriages" from marriage equality and delineates different treatment under the law.

Currently, religious freedom is defended in that no religious entity can be compelled to perform a marriage for any couple, but no agent of the state can deny access to marriage. Under this bill, religious bigotry will be rewarded by allowing a state to outlaw the issuance of a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

A reminder how religious freedom should work:
"My religion doesn't let me do that." "Whatever. Cool."
"My religion doesn't let you do that." "Fuck that."

Worse, a significant number of states have laws or constitutional amendments on the books, currently in abeyance because of Obergefell, that deny same-sex couples access to marriage. These will awaken and emerge from their crypt with the reversal of Obergefell. These states, along with any others that decide to join them, will be empowered to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, although they will be forced to recognize existing marriages and any marriages performed in a jurisdiction where it remains legal.

So, there is already a lot of discussion and movement toward a rollback of marriage equality. This bill backstops the worst excesses of a reversal of Obergefell, but carves out a separate class of marriages with restricted access to the status based on how powerful religious bigotry is within a jurisdiction. In a state where this is already determined by a constitution amendment, this can't be addressed through simple legislation, even if a majority wishes to remedy the situation. Republicans in Virginia have successfully blocked repeal of our odious amendment in preparation for the reversal of Obergefell.

I appreciate your advocacy and support. I've tried to be forthright and fair about what's good and bad about the bill and the situation it addresses.

I don't appreciate the people who come at justifiably worried LGBTQ folks with messages like, what are you worried about, why are you whining, just be quiet and wait, you're not really losing anything, etc.

It makes me think of someone telling the Wicked Witch of the East, "Give it a rest sister, you're talking crazy! Get back to me when somebody actually drops a Kansas farmhouse on you out of the sky!"

Someone here actually told a poster to shut up and work to change the laws in 35 states. That's not empathy.

Thanks, y'all.

there are loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.

There will be ways for states to fuck you over and the red ones will.

No doubt the ones who did not will work hard to fuck it up.

it has to be deeply flawed. Because they are not good or decent people. They are vultures.

Has a national organization analyzed it fully? Have they put the word out for action to be taken with our Senators? We need information and direction if we are to help.

the GLBT community on this. People I know say it is flawed and I believe them. It impacts their lives.

Plus, if republicans voted for it, I don't trust it. It really is that simple.

So, you do you and trust 100% that it will be perfectly perfect in every way.

I'll hold my own skeptical view.

Eventually, we'll see how it works out.

I asked for the analysis as to how it can be approved and direction as to how we can help.

Shame on you, Bettie for trying to diminish in the most disingenuous manner my sincere request for more information and direction, to try to accuse me of not helping our LGBTQ community. SHAME ON YOU~!

I wasn't accusing you of anything, but nice deflection.

You do you and I'll do me and we'll see who turns out to be right.

I don't believe that any republican will willingly help anyone but themselves.

You obviously believe that there are "good ones". I did once, but that was a long while ago.

So, be outraged if that makes you happy. I'm done with talking about this with you.

SHAME ON YOU! You are absolutely off-base and doing nothing to help our fellow LGBTQ community by attacking the very people who are reaching out to help. You are hurting efforts to join with them to help. I doubt any seeing your behavior towards the DU community at large will even WANT your help. I don't know what your problem is, but you need to rethink your attitude.

I don't know of any flaws and no one has been able to point any out. So the ball is in the naysayers court to prove otherwise.

P.S I have been fighting for LGBTQ rights since the 80's.

but living in a red state, I have heard from several friends who are concerned about recognition in the state once Obergefell is overturned. They are concerned about recognition in hospitals and other such things that the state has control over.

They are also moving up marriage plans while it is legal, in hopes that their marriages will continue to be recognized once the extremists on the supreme court take their rights away. (Words of one of the people involved...long phone call yesterday.)

If they are concerned about it, I tend to believe that there is reason to be.

Now, if you live in a state that will treat people like people, there may not be reason to fear. Living under Kim Reynolds...not good for anyone in any way.

...if the Supreme Court overrules the precedent set in Obergefell, it means that the issue would go back to the states, and this legislation does nothing to prevent a state from banning same-sex marriage within that state to residents of that state.

It does seem to require that states require other states' same-sex marriages, so there may be a loophole where a resident of a state that has banned same-sex marriage can go to another state to get married and then return to their state and have their marriage recognized -- EDIT: even though a poster later in this thread says this may not be the case? --but to me, that isn't much different than saying, "well, if your state bans abortion, just go fly to a state that allows it."

Granted, at the same time, there is no reason to crap on this bill because it is PROGRESS, and the LGBT community is far better off with this being the law of the land than if it were not, but there are some potential pitfalls and it doesn't seem to fully guarantee same-sex marriage in the way that everyone seems to think...

be recognized by each of the states, so I'm not sure how that could be eliminated, but yes, much like the unequal patchwork of abortion laws that is beyond infuriating to me.

And all should remember, we can't even get past the filibuster to deal with abortion in the Senate right now and it looks like we'll have no progress in the near future, so to me, this incremental progress on gay marriage may be a necessary first step.

not take their help. Because like it or not, Democrats can’t do this alone.

states that do not permit gay marriage must recognize gay marriage as legal if the marriage took place in a state where it was legal. So no, it is not a law that codifies gay marriage nationally. If you live in a state where gay marriage is not recognized you still must travel to another state to get married. But once you do you must be considered as married in every state. Accurate?

While also stipulating that there are certain practical political realities that likely prohibited legislation that would be considered 100% perfect by my friends?

In the end it's likely I'll hold both opinions IOW, but will certainly endeavor to avoid coming off as 'dismissive'.

Almost nothing is ever exactly how we want it to be in this world. Doesn't mean we give up trying to make it so

Is the wedding on or off now?

If SCOTUS reverses Obergefell (as some justices have indicated intent) many states, like Virginia, have laws or constitutional amendments that will automatically outlaw the issuance of marriage licenses for same-sex couples. In that case you’d need to travel to a state that allows our marriages to be performed. When you return home, your state is required to give full faith and credit to the marriage while subtly communicating the animus of the religious bigots this bill has accommodated.

They can travel out of state if need be.

Marriage that quickly won’t matter unless they overturn it.

So nerve wracking planning a wedding when the GOP could make it illegal any day.

These, of course, are fake dates:

2/1/23 Supreme Court strikes down Obergefell
2/15/23 Florida makes same sex marriage illegal
Any same sex couple married before 2/15/23 are still married in Florida
Florida does not have to recognize any same sex marriage done after 2/14/23 regardless where the marriage was performed

Last edited Thu Nov 17, 2022, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

It looks like Florida would have to recognize a same-sex marriage license from out-of-state, but it is true that Florida could deny same sex couples the right to marry in Florida. The Respect for Marriage Act allows states to discriminate by allowing them to ban same-sex marriage in their states.

https://news.yahoo.com/heres-respect-marriage-act-200547633.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZGVtb2NyYXRpY3VuZGVyZ3JvdW5kLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJyXm8MIY_SRPUCuUa_XhjuHKtZ3By20WH2EJ4WuQd38OjOLYXQxC2KUT6uVFTqWvQ6FSzE4MT8qoIb_qzPB_xr7ytdoEde3Eaj_qNS1Xe2qh0T_QVNfcaIR6wyt98E_C-fj1BOP_O7NjuIX9BVe78ZDfDs2kgfl5chBsVbzYJ63

It is based on the full faith and credit principle.

more work to be done.

Ted Kennedy said his biggest regret was opposing Richard Nixon's universal health care plan which if it passed every American would have health care now. It was a two tier system where employers would provide health care insurance and everybody else with the emphasis on everybody would have government issued health insurance on a sliding fee scale.
With all that being said, of course, the bill can be better. We still don't have EDNA years and years after it was first proposed.

This law was a backup in case the SCOTUS repeals gay marriage nationwide. Hopefully this law is never needed. But considering a 50-50 Senate, getting something on the books to protect gay marriage just in case is pretty good.

But maybe if the SCOTUS overturned it that would be a reason why states can deny it. This forces them to recognize it though.

And don’t forget, Loving is protected too. There are states where interracial marriage is still illegal if not for Loving.

But this bill ensures that states and the federal government have to recognize same sex marriages from other states.

And it was this or nothing.

For the record. I think gay couples should be able to get married in whatever state they choose. The way it is now. But if the extremists in the SCOTUS overturn the law, this will still guarantee their marriages are recognized everywhere. It will force some couple to leave the state to get married though, and that’s wrong, but it could be a lot worse.