Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, December 08, 2022

White House: Today, Congress took a critical step to ensure that Americans have the right to marry the person they love. The House's bipartisan passage of the Respect for Marriage Act--by a significant margin--will give peace of mind to millions of LGBTQI+ and interracial couples who are now guaranteed the rights and protections to which they and their children are entitled. After the uncertainty caused by the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, Congress has restored a measure of security to millions of marriages and families. They have also provided hope and dignity to millions of young people across this country who can grow up knowing that their government will recognize and respect the families they build.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

...President Joe Biden is expected to promptly sign the measure, which requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages, a relief for hundreds of thousands of couples who have married since the Supreme Court's 2015 decision that legalized those marriages nationwide.

The bipartisan legislation, which passed 258-169 with almost 40 Republican votes, would also protect interracial unions by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of "sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin." After months of talks, the Senate passed the bill last week with 12 Republican votes.

In debate ahead of the vote, several gay members of Congress talked about what it would mean for them and their families. Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., said he was set to marry "the love of my life" next year and that it is "unthinkable" that his marriage might not be recognized in some states.

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., said he and his husband should be able to visit each other in the hospital just like any other married couple and receive spousal benefits "regardless of if your spouse's name Samuel or Samantha."...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-12-08 12:48 PM | Reply

This is huge. IMO, this is dancing bananas huge. HUGE HUGE HUGE. A blessed day for American civil rights.

#2 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-12-08 01:14 PM | Reply

It's sad that we have had to codify this in legislation because of the make-up of the Supreme Court.

#3 | Posted by Sycophant at 2022-12-08 04:50 PM | Reply

ge victory for American families. Many of them include childrenwho benefit from the secure marriages of their parents.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2022-12-09 03:06 AM | Reply

I cannot but wonder if this will be "appealed" to the Corruption that runs the Supreme Court, for the Catholic Church hates gay rights, never mind equality. Wonder on what basis their lawyers will use to get it in front of the great legal minds of Thomas etc.

#5 | Posted by Hughmass at 2022-12-09 06:38 AM | Reply

It was a brilliant move to include protection for interracial couples here. That'll make it a bit tougher for Clarence to deem this unconstitutional with a straight face.

#6 | Posted by anton at 2022-12-09 07:09 AM | Reply

Can the SCOTUS find some loophole to make this "unconstitutional"? I'm sure it won't be for lack of trying.

Alito must be frantic.

#7 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2022-12-09 07:59 AM | Reply

It's sad that we have had to codify this in legislation because of the make-up of the Supreme Court.

#3 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2022-12-08 04:50 PM | REPLY

It's not sad, it's the Legislature effing JOB to codify law. What is sad is what took them so long. They had 50 years to codify Roe and they failed. It is NOT the Supremes job to write law, it is their job to interpret.

#8 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-12-09 08:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's unfortunate we didn't anticipate the politicalization of the Supreme Court to an activist wacko religious cult status equivalent to the Morality Police in Iran.

#9 | Posted by YAV at 2022-12-09 08:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's sad that we have had to codify this in legislation because of the make-up of the Supreme Court.
#3 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2022-12-08 04:50 PM | REPLY
It's not sad, it's the Legislature effing JOB to codify law. What is sad is what took them so long. They had 50 years to codify Roe and they failed. It is NOT the Supremes job to write law, it is their job to interpret.
#8 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

Seriously? You think the legislature should have to codify that a white person and black person can get married? Do we need to codify that you can breath air or drink water?

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2022-12-09 10:38 AM | Reply

It's a shame that this even has to be done.

#11 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-12-09 12:31 PM | Reply

What is sad is what took them so long. They had 50 years to codify Roe and they failed. It is NOT the Supremes job to write law, it is their job to interpret.

#8 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7 AT 2022-12-09 08:24 AM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

"What took so long" Ask Joe Biden, he fought same sex marriage.

#12 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-12-09 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ask Joe Biden, he fought same sex marriage.

#12 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

And then he made it all the way to the White House where he just signed a bill to protect them.

Strange world eh?

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-12-09 01:01 PM | Reply

Joe Biden evolves, unlike *some*.

#14 | Posted by YAV at 2022-12-09 01:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It's a shame that this even has to be done."

What's a shame is how many Republicans in the House and Senate voted against it.

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-12-09 01:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

It's sad that we have had to codify this in legislation because of the make-up of the Supreme Court.
#3 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2022-12-08 04:50 PM | REPLY
It's not sad, it's the Legislature effing JOB to codify law. What is sad is what took them so long. They had 50 years to codify Roe and they failed. It is NOT the Supremes job to write law, it is their job to interpret.
#8 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7
Seriously? You think the legislature should have to codify that a white person and black person can get married? Do we need to codify that you can breath air or drink water?
#10 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2022-12-09 10:38 AM

OBVIOUSLY.

#16 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2022-12-10 12:09 PM | Reply

Seriously? You think the legislature should have to codify that a white person and black person can get married? Do we need to codify that you can breath air or drink water?

^
This gets right to the heart of the matter.

And Republicans are more than happy to explain to you that you "No, mixed race couples shouldn't be allowed to get married."
Sixty years later, Republicans are more than happy to tell you "No, mixed sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married."

Then they'll tell you that the above comparison is completely unfair, because that mixed race marriages are nothing like mixed sex marriages, but they can't explain why.

Then they'll ask why can't three people get married. Why can't a farmer marry his tractor. Why can't the crazy cat lady marry all her cats. And they don't even realize they're gaslighting with those questions -- well maybe not the polygamy one, Republicans might still be able to support that so long as it's one man and multiple wives.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-12-10 12:23 PM | Reply

I'll say it again; I'm a Conservative and I think the Government should stay out of marriage completely. we shouldn't have to go get a stinking Marriage License to get married!

it is none of the Governments business, stay the hell out of it!

#18 | Posted by Maverick at 2022-12-10 06:36 PM | Reply

Whoa! A libertarian!

I thought you all went extinct in the '10s.

Now really blow my mind and say abortion isn't the government's business either.

#19 | Posted by horstngraben at 2022-12-10 06:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Same sex inerracial eh?

Sooo... I guess that means Condelezza and Randi are safe now.

#20 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2022-12-10 07:06 PM | Reply

Oh sorry I should have looked that up... it's Randy with a "y"... which could be seen in some lopsided way as a "binary" name.

#21 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2022-12-10 07:09 PM | Reply

Mary Kate and Ashley still can't tie the knot.

#22 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-12-10 07:23 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort