• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Senate passes landmark protections for same-sex marriage

We Never Know

No Slack
A sign that some are willing to work together.

Senate passes landmark protections for same-sex marriage

"Senators on Tuesday passed legislation cementing federal protections for same-sex marriage, a historic step that follows months of bipartisan negotiations and puts the landmark bill just steps away from becoming law."

Senate passes landmark protections for same-sex marriage


12 Republican senators broke with their party and voted for a bill to protect same-sex marriage

"A bill designed to protect same-sex and interracial marriage passed the Senate by a 61-36 margin Tuesday night, with 12 Republican senators joining Democrats in voting for the bill."

12 Republican senators broke with their party and voted for a bill to protect same-sex marriage
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
A sign that some are willing to work together.

Senate passes landmark protections for same-sex marriage

"Senators on Tuesday passed legislation cementing federal protections for same-sex marriage, a historic step that follows months of bipartisan negotiations and puts the landmark bill just steps away from becoming law."

Senate passes landmark protections for same-sex marriage


12 Republican senators broke with their party and voted for a bill to protect same-sex marriage

"A bill designed to protect same-sex and interracial marriage passed the Senate by a 61-36 margin Tuesday night, with 12 Republican senators joining Democrats in voting for the bill."

12 Republican senators broke with their party and voted for a bill to protect same-sex marriage
Cancelling Roe v. Wade by SCotUS has cost the reps a lot in this election. They don't want to see that again.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It passed because the fine print doesn't actually force states to adopt same sex marriage if Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned in such a way Roe v Wade was. It just forces states to observe out of state marriage, excepting for tonnes of religious exceptions also in the bill which will be fortified into law as well. Including discrimination practices on the basis of sexuality (as well as interracial coupling) for religious reasons.

This 'historic bill' is a wolf in sheep's clothing and I wish dems would have saw it.
Even LDS lobbyists were for it, which should have been a warning. "Mmmm, give us those sweet sweet religious exceptions clauses."
 
Last edited:

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Depends on what it is.
For example if a christian refuses to make a gay couple a cake because of his religious beliefs.. does it provide them protection because of their religion?

Honestly I think suing someone that refuses to make a person a cake because their lives disagree is pretty stupid anyway.
The only reason that particular baker won was because of judicial misconduct on the prosecution. The same baker lost later in a similar case with refusing to service a trans person.

Nobody should be able to refuse services for reasons of race, sex, gender, sexuality, race, nationality or national origin, disability or religion. It is illegal for me to screen out Christian patients and it should be illegal for them to screen out lgbt clients.

Saying 'they can just go somewhere else' is begging for insular communities to be given a pass for mistreatment of people who can't or won't leave. German Jews, Romani, LGBT and disabled learned this the hard way.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
The only reason that particular baker won was because of judicial misconduct on the prosecution. The same baker lost later in a similar case with refusing to service a trans person.

Nobody should be able to refuse services for reasons of race, sex, gender, sexuality, race, nationality or national origin, disability or religion. It is illegal for me to screen out Christian patients and it should be illegal for them to screen out lgbt clients.

Saying 'they can just go somewhere else' is begging for insular communities to be given a pass for mistreatment of people who can't or won't leave. German Jews, Romani, LGBT and disabled learned this the hard way.

If Bob has a business and doesn't like you, he shouldn't be forced to cater to you.

Its a bad deal for everyone.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It is not everything that the Democrats wanted, but it is not too bad. An abortion is a time sensitive event. The sooner the better. Marriages are often planned out over a year ahead of times. If one lives in a bigoted redneck state that ultimately refuses to have gay marriages performed in other states a gay couple that travels to another state would still be married in the state that they live in. The state is forced to observe that union by this law. This in effect takes the wind out of the sails in attempts to take away marriage equality. Doing so would only make a state look petty and there would likely be strong negative consequences if they did so. For example the NCAA is overall a more liberal than conservative governing body. They have stood up to states in the past when the enacted discriminatory laws and they folded.


Just think what would happen if the NCAA said "No bowl games in states that have taken away marriage equality"? They have done the equivalent in the past.

The combination of forcing gays and others to get married out of state only to have their marriage recognized and possible economic sanctions means that this law is more than likely to end attempts to end marriage equality.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
The only reason that particular baker won was because of judicial misconduct on the prosecution. The same baker lost later in a similar case with refusing to service a trans person.

Nobody should be able to refuse services for reasons of race, sex, gender, sexuality, race, nationality or national origin, disability or religion. It is illegal for me to screen out Christian patients and it should be illegal for them to screen out lgbt clients.

Saying 'they can just go somewhere else' is begging for insular communities to be given a pass for mistreatment of people who can't or won't leave. German Jews, Romani, LGBT and disabled learned this the hard way.


When all races can equally sing the words to a published song and not get their scholarship taken away for it, then talk to me about "race, sex, gender, sexuality, race, nationality or national origin, disability or religion"

White Florida quarterback loses scholarship for using N-word on social media


Edit.. IMO this kid is being punished because of his race, not because he was singing a word in the song.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Unless their reasons were entirely self-serving, and not humanitarian at all.
It probably was self serving to the Republican party. Some Republicans are beginning to understand how toxic the party has become and that they are fighting losing battles that can only harm the party. It is better to at least look enlightened if one wants to stop the bleeding.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's My Birthday!
It passed because the fine print doesn't actually force states to adopt same sex marriage if Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned in such a way Roe v Wade was. It just forces states to observe out of state marriage, excepting for tonnes of religious exceptions also in the bill which will be fortified into law as well. Including discrimination practices on the basis of sexuality (as well as interracial coupling) for religious reasons.

This 'historic bill' is a wolf in sheep's clothing and I wish dems would have saw it.
Even LDS lobbyists were for it, which should have been a warning. "Mmmm, give us those sweet sweet religious exceptions clauses."
That's the way that bills in congress have worked since 1789, by compromise. If you are for same-sex marriage, what's the alternative?
 
Top