|
World Famous W posted:lol, no biggie. just have a car, money and time How exactly do people without any time, money, or means of transportation typically get married? Getting married even in your own city requires all of these things.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:No they'll just kick it down to the states and say the Feds have no basis to legislate. I mean hell world and all but I'm not sure that would even work. If same sex marriage were legalized federally, it's just a federal law. SCOTUS can try to say it's a sates issue but that undermines the feds ability to pass... all... laws. Like I can't count out anything anymore but that does at least seem to be pretty radical. EDIT: Reading the text of the bill now and yeah they managed to basically do exactly this but at the legislative level. I'm pretty gobsmacked. Oh and they have to pass it first. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
Xombie posted:How exactly do people without any time, money, or means of transportation typically get married? Getting married even in your own city requires all of these things. Hypothetically speaking, it's probably much easier to find a way to get to a county courthouse or a local church than to a state potentially over a thousand miles away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
Xombie posted:How exactly do people without any time, money, or means of transportation typically get married? Getting married even in your own city requires all of these things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
It's so loving lovely that reproductive rights in this country are being destroyed by 2 people. There isn't a hell hot enough for Sinema and Manchin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Not sure how you want them to codify abortion rights legislation when they might not control the House. Ravenfood posted:The problem is currently the Senate. After the new Congress gets seated the problem will likely be the House and may also still be the Senate depending on Georgia's runoff, due to the filibuster. why bring up the house of representatives if the legislation cant pass the senate? i dont ever expect the democrats to codify it even if presented with a supermajority, just as they've failed to do so in the past, but it's discouraging to hear the president go "well that's the ballgame, guess its a holding pattern for the next two years" even after democrat voters turned out in better-than-expected numbers (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:why bring up the house of representatives if the legislation cant pass the senate? That is indeed the ball game. They don't have enough votes, and the election was their chance to get more votes, and they didn't get enough new votes. That's going to be disappointing regardless of the exact wording of the public statements about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:do i really need to explain how doing something local and doing something out of state can put a hell of a lot of extra roadblocks in your way That isn't what you said, though. You're moving the goalposts. You said "have a car, money and time" as too high a road block to getting married. But putting that aside, there's nothing stopping any state from setting up a "get married online" portal and collecting all of those fees that were going to localities in the South before. That is of course, assuming that no where overturns their gay marriage ban due to the much different climate today as opposed to when they were passed. Where we are now is that there are 10 GOP senators willing to codify same sex marriage into federal law. This is all of course moot while Obergfell is in place, and SCOTUS isn't going to bother overturning it considering all of the above. Urgency, limited facilities, and medical nature are all permanent roadblocks to abortion access. If Nevada wants to make a website for everyone in the US to elope, there is literally nothing stopping them. Xombie fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
Xombie posted:That isn't what you said, though. You're moving the goalposts. You said "have a car, money and time" as too high a road block to getting married. Xombie posted:But putting that aside, there's nothing stopping any state from setting up a "get married online" portal and collecting all of those fees that were going to localities in the South before. That is of course, assuming that no where overturns their gay marriage ban due to the much different climate today as opposed to when they were passed. Where we are now is that there are 10 GOP senators willing to codify same sex marriage into federal law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Basically, this isn't a federal implementation of the Obergefell decision, because anything along those lines would have to be a Constitutional amendment clarifying explicitly the holdings of Obergefell. Instead, this is an anti-Defense of Marriage Act (thus its name!), recognizing same sex marriages at the federal level and providing some protections at the state level via full faith and credit. A bigger majority run entirely by Dems with no filibuster to worry about, and with a neutral-to-friendly SCOTUS, could possibly find a "creative" way to force states to solemnize same sex marriages, but by the same token, a neutral to friendly SCOTUS wouldn't be putting us in this situation to begin with. 
Quorum fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:let's hope so, but as someone in alabama ain't holding my breath There literally already are online marriage websites. Officiants observe the marriage over Zoom, and send you a marriage certificate in the mail. The pandemic only accelerated this as an option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Xombie posted:There literally already are online marriage websites. Officiants observe the marriage over Zoom, and send you a marriage certificate in the mail. The pandemic only accelerated this as an option. Don't worry WWW, if you want to get same-sex married in Alabama, you can just do it online! It's a separate deal from doing it traditionally, but totally equal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Don't worry WWW, if you want to get same-sex married in Alabama, you can just do it online! It's a separate deal from doing it traditionally, but totally equal. They can get gay married in Alabama, because gay marriage is legal in Alabama and the rest of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
Xombie posted:They can get gay married in Alabama, because gay marriage is legal in Alabama and the rest of the United States. Then what's all this about getting online married  sounds like you're moving goalposts
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Then what's all this about getting online married It sounds like you need to read posts. Xombie posted:This is all of course moot while Obergfell is in place, and SCOTUS isn't going to bother overturning it considering all of the above. Xombie posted:It prevents Xombie fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Disappointing, but not entirely surprising to see Biden claim that they wont be able to pass abortion-rights legislation. I guess i'm surprised to see him say this so close to the elections are you objecting that biden is saying a republican house is unlikely to pass a bill codifing roe v wade? which part of "republicans are unlikely to codify roe v wade" do you feel is democrats not delivering on their promises. biden was very clear on what would get roe v wade codified: 52 dem senators; hold the house. BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:why bring up the house of representatives if the legislation cant pass the senate? would you prefer president biden tell you that the republican house is going to codify roe v wade then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:why bring up the house of representatives if the legislation cant pass the senate? Really feels like you don't understand both the current and future makeup of the house and senate, and how laws get passed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Xombie posted:It sounds like you need to read posts. No, I read just fine. You're just handwaving away the insufficiencies in the proposed legislation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:It's so loving lovely that reproductive rights in this country are being destroyed by 2 people. There isn't a hell hot enough for Sinema and Manchin. I can assure you that it is being destroyed by more than 2 people
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:biden was very clear on what would get roe v wade codified: 52 dem senators; hold the house. Also that those two new senators and the new/remaining House members all like abortion which despite party platform we can look at Manchin and Sinema and Cuellar and etc and see is not at all guaranteed
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:No, I read just fine. You're just handwaving away the insufficiencies in the proposed legislation. I'm arguing against what people say are the insufficiencies of the proposed legislation, using words. You're welcome to address those arguments.
On top of all this, there's no way for someone to challenge Obergfell because there's no way for someone to argue that they are harmed by the decision or this law. Xombie fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
I don’t think even if the Dems had won the Senate 52-48 and held the House that they would have 50 to kill the filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:No, I read just fine. You're just handwaving away the insufficiencies in the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation only becomes relevant if the SCOTUS reverses their earlier decision on gay marriage, which given this law is now a lot less likely. In the unlikely event that they do reverse their prior decision, this law then becomes relevant, and people can get a SSM over the internet with another state even if they don't live there. No car needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I don’t think even if the Dems had won the Senate 52-48 and held the House that they would have 50 to kill the filibuster. 48 Senators literally went on the record and promised they would vote to carve a special exemption to the filibuster for abortion. There's really no good reason at all to think they were lying, especially when those 48 had already voted in favor of a bullshit exemption for HR1. It would not be the first time a bullshit Calvinball filibuster exemption was passed by the Dems. This is not a new novel thing. They did it before for judges, they can do it again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
Fair enough, perhaps I'm just thinking about this from the perspective of someone who lives in a red state with no real commitment to the rule of law, and am still pretty bristly about "just get online married!" considering the sanctity of the institution to some people. But otherwise I concede. Judgy Fucker fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
Also is it possible whatever fake logic the Court uses to make marriage a state issue also bans internet weddings, or they just do it anyway at the same time? Like we're probably not the only ones to think of this loophole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
As soon as you carve out 1 exemption you're going to need to go all out and get everything done during that term. Gay marriage, DC statehood, all the laws you can because dems will get 1 shot at it all before republicans will take that carveout as a reason to get rid of it and then pass their own agenda.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Also is it possible whatever fake logic the Court uses to make marriage a state issue also bans internet weddings, or they just do it anyway at the same time? Like we're probably not the only ones to think of this loophole. Anything is possible. It is not reasonable to believe that even this court would do this. All kinds of licenses for a variety of things are granted by states to nonresidents. The state does not have to care about where you are physically located when you apply for whatever license. Sometimes they do care, sometimes they don't, sometimes they care for some licenses but not for others, its all up to the state. Weddings for nonresidents have been around forever, Vegas is famous for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:As soon as you carve out 1 exemption you're going to need to go all out and get everything done during that term. Gay marriage, DC statehood, all the laws you can because dems will get 1 shot at it all before republicans will take that carveout as a reason to get rid of it and then pass their own agenda. The filibuster does not stop the GOP from passing the vast majority of what they want. Most of what the GOP wants (now that it no longer blocks judges) can be done easily in reconciliation. The filibuster is now almost entirely a tool to block Democratic priorities but not Republican priorities. This whole "but the GOP might pass evil poo poo too someday!" is not a thing to be afraid of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Don't worry WWW, if you want to get same-sex married in Alabama, you can just do it online! It's a separate deal from doing it traditionally, but totally equal. Are you really suggesting that getting your marriage license from an online portal instead of going down to the county clerk's office is equivalent to segregation? e: Judgy Fucker posted:Fair enough, perhaps I'm just thinking about this from the perspective of someone who lives in a red state with no real commitment to the rule of law, and am still pretty bristly about "just get online married!" considering the sanctity of the institution to some people. But otherwise I concede. You can still have whatever ceremony you please. All that stuff, even the churchiest of church stuff, is just ceremony. The marriage license is what counts as far as laws are concerned. You had gay folks holding big old wedding ceremonies and receptions long before gay marriage was legal in this country. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Are you really suggesting that getting your marriage license from an online portal instead of going down to the county clerk's office is equivalent to segregation? I am really suggesting that a situation where some people are forced to get online married because of certain inherent characteristics as opposed to getting married through traditional means smacks of separate-but-equal, yes. However, I have been assured that this scenario will never happen, so it's a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The filibuster does not stop the GOP from passing the vast majority of what they want. Most of what the GOP wants (now that it no longer blocks judges) can be done easily in reconciliation. The filibuster is now almost entirely a tool to block Democratic priorities but not Republican priorities. This whole "but the GOP might pass evil poo poo too someday!" is not a thing to be afraid of. i mean, i agree that once you carve out one exemption, it's dead, so go HAM with passing poo poo with 50 votes instead of hoping your exemption sticks but if your choice is open that one-time exemption and then be required to pretend to keep the filibuster for everything else because your 50th vote is a moron, do that anyway and take that win and when republicans blow it up further, that'll deal with your 50th vote next time you get a chance to pass bills (much like how manchin wouldn't be the 50th vote to abolish judicial filibusters but now that it's gone, he'll happily be the 50th vote for a judge)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:As soon as you carve out 1 exemption you're going to need to go all out and get everything done during that term. Gay marriage, DC statehood, all the laws you can because dems will get 1 shot at it all before republicans will take that carveout as a reason to get rid of it and then pass their own agenda. If Republicans ever end up in a position where the filibuster is in the way of passing something the party wants, whether Democrats have made carveouts before will have absolutely zero influence on whether they do it. They just haven't been in that position: even with the trifecta under Trump their constant challenge was hitting 51 votes on anything big. It's not even one of those "but if Dems pass a law to do a good thing SCOTUS will declare it super illegal and also that Trump is still President so why bother" sort of calvinball claim. It's just that eliminating the filibuster via the same channels that created it will have no real blowback in itself from either voters or the remaining party moderates. The laws they want to pass by eliminating it might, but they're already past that point. That said, I agree that if you cut one carveout you might as well go all the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Fair enough, perhaps I'm just thinking about this from the perspective of someone who lives in a red state with no real commitment to the rule of law, and am still pretty bristly about "just get online married!" considering the sanctity of the institution to some people. But otherwise I concede. For the record, I'm not just talking about eloping. The loopholes are enough that someone signing your marriage license just needs to observe the ceremony. Which means you could have a completely normal ceremony, but you get the marriage license in the mail and it has a different state on it, signed by someone who watched it on Zoom. projecthalaxy posted:Also is it possible whatever fake logic the Court uses to make marriage a state issue also bans internet weddings, or they just do it anyway at the same time? Like we're probably not the only ones to think of this loophole. This would 100% violate the full faith and credit clause. The document is what is regulated by the state. If the document is from another state, signed by someone in that state, there is no way for them to "ban" it. It is up to the state issuing the license to decide what "solemnizing" the marriage entails.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:If Republicans ever end up in a position where the filibuster is in the way of passing something the party wants, whether Democrats have made carveouts before will have absolutely zero influence on whether they do it. They just haven't been in that position: even with the trifecta under Trump their constant challenge was hitting 51 votes on anything big. I don't really agree. Mitch had plenty of things that, in an ideal world, he'd have passed with their trifecta in 2016-2018 he couldn't get passed the filibuster. He gambled - correctly - that leaving the filibuster intact would rebound to their benefit even if there was some stuff that he wouldn't mind passing with 51 votes he couldn't quite manage to do. Now, if he needed something big enough, yeah it was going to be gone (like, say, a SCOTUS seat - he would have abolished the filibuster on that with or without democrats abolishing it on circuit courts). But as people have said, the existence of the filibuster is asymmetric: it doesn't block very much of what Republicans want, while blocking a lot of what Democrats want. So Republicans are going to be a lot more hesitant to blow it up because the gains will be relatively small and the costs potentially large. That doesn't mean they won't, if the goal is big enough. It also means once an exception is carved out by Democrats, they probably no longer view the cost as relatively large - democrats will continue opening up exceptions as needed, so just take what you can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:It's so loving lovely that reproductive rights in this country are being destroyed by 2 people. There isn't a hell hot enough for Sinema and Manchin. Way more than two people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The proposed legislation only becomes relevant if the SCOTUS reverses their earlier decision on gay marriage, which given this law is now a lot less likely. If Obergfell is overturned, states can ban same sex marriage. The fact that people who want to get married would be required to go to another state to do so makes this law worse than the current status quo. It doesn't solve the issue of having to depend on a supreme court decision that could be reversed. It's a compromise because equal rights for LGBT people is still not something we can approve legislatively without exceptions and caveats. So don't tell people to just be happy they can get married online. You're really loving close to "but you'll have your *own* water fountain." DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
Allowing local government services to be replaced by online portals because the local government doesn't want to service gay people seems like bad policy on its face. I don't see any benefit to allowing red states the ability to discriminate even if the discrimination amounts to being pointed to an online portal. Edit: Like I keep thinking what if it was about mixed race marriages and I think people would be a lot quicker to not see an online portal as a valid compromise. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
Candidate Obama posted:The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. President Obama posted:The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that’s — that’s where I’m going to focus. B B fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
If Roe were codified, you'd just likely have the current SCOTUS rule that states have plenary powers to pass laws against "murder" within their jurisdiction. At best, I think you'd end up with a law allowing out of state travel for abortions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 18:25
|
|
