While bills advancing voting rights and LGBTQ protections have been held up by the filibuster, 12 Republicans joined all 50 Democrats to advance a bill that provides some marriage protections.
This law still relies on the marriage being valid at the state level, so if a state bans same sex marriage, then this law would do nothing to protect same sex marriages in that state
If Obergefell were to be overturned, no, this bill, should it become law, would not require a state to marry same-sex couples. The problem is that it's not quite clear that Congress could do so. What it does, however, is provide some level of protection to legally married couples, even if they are in a state — in this post-Obergefell-imagined world — that does not allow same-sex couples to marry by requiring the state to recognize those marriages. (Technically, the bill bans them from denying "full faith and credit" to the marriage on the basis of sex.)
I was wondering the same thing. It sure seems like this Supreme Court will do as it pleases, and if it wants to invalidate a law, it will find a way/reason to do so.
Congress certainly has the ability to repeal DOMA, so, I'm not sure that part could have any real challenge. The state-level protection could, in theory, face a challenge, but I think this has been crafted both broadly — banning discrimination "on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin" — and narrowly — by only addressing recognition of a legal marriage — to diminish the potential for success from any such challenges. In addition, regardless of one's views on the wisdom of them, a lot of the religious exemption language will prevent challenges on those bases.
I hope that you're right, but this Supreme Court doesn't need much--or any, really--justification/legal support to do what it's going to do. It should never have overturned Roe v. Wade, yet it did. The "Independent State Legislature" doctrine is a farce, yet the Supreme Court is going to hear oral argument on it this term. So, unfortunately, I put nothing past them.
While I am very happy that there has been a significant shift in the public's and politicians' attitudes regarding marriage equality, I do not agree with your implied assumption that this shift is necessarily good news concerning the right's (and much of the left's) war against transgender people. The dominant culture - including a good number of cisgender gay people - does not view "gay" marriage and transgender equity as related or similar concerns. That connection is primarily made only by the most hateful elements of the right, who view even the slightest variation from "traditional" binary gender roles as abhorrent. So while this shift is progress, it should in no way be considered an indication that the current non-partisan, unrelenting and increasing hostility towards transgender people is abating.
Yes, I strongly agree with you: There are far too many who support marriage equality and are hostile to trans people's rights — or even existence. Much, much more work needs to be done — both in the LGBTQ community and more broadly.
This was a clear and easily understood analysis. It will help me explain this vote to family members. Thanks.
This law still relies on the marriage being valid at the state level, so if a state bans same sex marriage, then this law would do nothing to protect same sex marriages in that state
If Obergefell were to be overturned, no, this bill, should it become law, would not require a state to marry same-sex couples. The problem is that it's not quite clear that Congress could do so. What it does, however, is provide some level of protection to legally married couples, even if they are in a state — in this post-Obergefell-imagined world — that does not allow same-sex couples to marry by requiring the state to recognize those marriages. (Technically, the bill bans them from denying "full faith and credit" to the marriage on the basis of sex.)
What prevents SCOTUS from overriding this bill as unconstitutional on some basis (or none)?
I was wondering the same thing. It sure seems like this Supreme Court will do as it pleases, and if it wants to invalidate a law, it will find a way/reason to do so.
Congress certainly has the ability to repeal DOMA, so, I'm not sure that part could have any real challenge. The state-level protection could, in theory, face a challenge, but I think this has been crafted both broadly — banning discrimination "on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin" — and narrowly — by only addressing recognition of a legal marriage — to diminish the potential for success from any such challenges. In addition, regardless of one's views on the wisdom of them, a lot of the religious exemption language will prevent challenges on those bases.
I hope that you're right, but this Supreme Court doesn't need much--or any, really--justification/legal support to do what it's going to do. It should never have overturned Roe v. Wade, yet it did. The "Independent State Legislature" doctrine is a farce, yet the Supreme Court is going to hear oral argument on it this term. So, unfortunately, I put nothing past them.
While I am very happy that there has been a significant shift in the public's and politicians' attitudes regarding marriage equality, I do not agree with your implied assumption that this shift is necessarily good news concerning the right's (and much of the left's) war against transgender people. The dominant culture - including a good number of cisgender gay people - does not view "gay" marriage and transgender equity as related or similar concerns. That connection is primarily made only by the most hateful elements of the right, who view even the slightest variation from "traditional" binary gender roles as abhorrent. So while this shift is progress, it should in no way be considered an indication that the current non-partisan, unrelenting and increasing hostility towards transgender people is abating.
Oops, sorry - I misread your statement -it appears you actually said what I am saying, rather than the opposite. I need to get my eyes checked. 😏
Yes, I strongly agree with you: There are far too many who support marriage equality and are hostile to trans people's rights — or even existence. Much, much more work needs to be done — both in the LGBTQ community and more broadly.