Posted on 07/18/2022 8:27:38 PM PDT by fwdude
A bipartisan group of lawmakers on Monday introduced legislation to officially repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and require federal recognition for same-sex and interracial marriages nationwide.
The measure’s introduction comes in response to an opinion by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last month following the court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that established the constitutional right to an abortion.
Thomas wrote that the court’s “substantive due process precedents” set in cases like Obergefell v. Hodges — which legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states — should be revisited, creating widespread uncertainty and panic among same-sex married couples over whether their unions will continue to be recognized.
The Respect for Marriage Act, introduced Monday by top House and Senate Democrats, would repeal DOMA, the 1996 law that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court in 2013 ruled that a section of the law preventing the government from recognizing same-sex marriages for the purposes of determining federal benefits was unconstitutional, but the remainder of the law is still technically in place, albeit unenforceable.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Where's that Marriage Amendment we were promised by the REPUBLICANS who said they'd support it if the courts got out of hand?
Bi-Partisan...
Democrats, and other Democrats...
What’s bi-partisan about it?
Because that is the number one problem in America.
YAWN.
Failed numerous times before; its "bipartisan support" is basically just Susan Collins. Will pass the House and fail in the Senate, like every other scheme the Democrats cook up in the 117th Congress.
Please God
For Congress or a state legislature to enact a bill establishing same-sex marriage is constitutionally valid.
For SCOTUS to declare a right to same-sex marriage is not.
Substantive due process is nonsense. All the justices know it, they just afraid of the consequences of correcting it.
Newspeak “Respect for Marriage” really means “Defense of all cohabitations masquerading as ‘marriage’”—and disrespect for the God-ordained union of one man with one woman.
Because it is.
In sum: the power to include is the power to destroy.
The nonsense of substantive due process is one of the reasons for the Dobbs decision.
Or,
“Inclusion is ultimately exclusion”
Where a person chooses to insert his private parts has nothing to do with genetically determined skin color.
???
*** interracial marriages***
Wait, what?! Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage. Do they think he’s gonna say that’s not ok?
More posturing by leftist kooks.
Indeed. They love that sh#t. But their time is running out.
Or maybe that’s exactly what you were referring to!
It would show a massive level of legal integrity if Justice Thomas pointed out the flawed legal reasoning in that decision which would undercut his own marriage. Aren't leftists always howling about conflicts of interest in Judges they disagree with? This would be the exact opposite of that.
And not a single state would criminalize interacial marriage if Loving were overturned. Plenty of states would overturn sodomite "marriage" though.
What is ‘race’?
Is there a scientific, biological definition of it?
Or is it just a construct devised to control people politically?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.