Same sex marriage bill passes procedural vote in Senate
- Thread starter vibise
- Start date
I though you have said that churches have no place in the discussion of public policy.
This is another area where the federal government is exceeding its constitutional powers.
mikeT
Well-known member
The Constitution says all powers not delineated to the Federal government belong to the states.
Churches have no place in politics, that is, in advocating for candidates or parties, but that does not mean they cannot advocate for particular social issues, like abortion or social justice.
The bill also aims to legalize interracial marriage
Mitch McConnell voted against the bill despite his being in an interracial marriage.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
And you have no clue of his reasoning behind his vote
Your lack of knowledge about the structure of laws in the US is showingm
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
No; I'm simply aghast that interracial marriage could be illegal in any US state.
Or, that some federal statute is needed to secure its legality - this is what's wrong with the legislative jigsaw that is the "United" States.
Oxymoron
mikeT
Well-known member
We need a congressional investigation on this...
Furion
Well-known member
Super Duper Proud of it they are.
Proud is the most bizarre thing to be over your sexual perversions
mikeT
Well-known member
Voting on federal bills was delineated to the Federal government, not the states.
You've failed to show where "the federal government is exceeding its constitutional powers"
Edit: more interestingly, you objected to same sex marriage being made legal at the federal level, but not interracial marriage. Interesting indeed...
It makes no sense to have marriage regulated based on where people happen to live or travel.
I think the point is that although SSM was made legal by a SCOTUS decision, SCOTUS can reverse that, just as they did for RvW. In fact, in his Dobbs opinion, Clarence Thomas signaled that he was open to reversing Obergefell.
Having SSM and interracial marriage codified by law makes it harder for SCOTUS to act.
Furion
Well-known member
If you get surgery and now have both sets of genitals, can you marry yourself?
Trans People Are Seeking Nonbinary Bottom Surgeries
Across the gender spectrum, some patients are looking for mixed sets of genitals, or none at all. Actually receiving this affirming care isn't easy.
www.vice.com
mikeT
Well-known member
I disagree, but only for technical reasons.
If there were no legal/financial benefits attached to marriage, it would be fine to regulate it from town town - for all that anyone would care, because not having your marriage recognized in one town would have almost no consequences.
It becomes problematic when said benefits are attached. At that point, the institution deserves legal regulation, because it makes no sense (for example) for a gay couple to have hospital visitation rights in one state but not another.
If marriage were simply a religious institution, I would have no problem with it being regulated by individual churches. It's not, however; it's now a state/legal institution, and that's why it deserves federal protections.
But it is OK when heterosexual couples do this?