Codifying Roe may require a similar amendment for religious freedom that includes non-profit religion-affiliated hospitals.
The main thing is that states have to recognize marriages from other states?
It effing sucks we constantly have to accommodate the nut jobs living in make believe land. And the effing hypocrites supporting the likes LâOrange.
1 Like
Itâs basically the church saying âWeâll tell our congregants itâs OK to support same-sex marriage as long as you donât make the church get involved with all of this gay stuff.â
1 Like
I am not 100% sure how to feel about the marriage bill. Think we should be pushing for more, but not sure if I should be happy about this rather than nothing.
A closer look at the nuts and bolts of the Senateâs Respect for Marriage Act shows that it doesnât codify a federal right to same-sex marriage; rather, it requires state governments to respect same-sex marriages that happened when same-sex marriage was legal.
The Respect for Marriage Act has drawn significant bipartisan support in Congress and even among religious groups because, in addition to not enshrining a federal same-sex marriage right, it also codifies strong âreligious freedomâ rights for faith-based groups and organizations. The bill gives them significant leeway to discriminate against LGBTQ people and same-sex couples, almost as a tradeoff for state governments to recognize currently legally married same-sex couples no matter how the Supreme Court rules in the future.
the bill as a compromise seems to narrow which potential legal (and scotus) challenges can be expected. for example, the bill carves out religious liberties exceptions, so the legal strategy that this is infringement on the first amendment is preempted. on the other hand, it gives each congregation a legal right to refuse some but not all services. so it preempts complaints that a gay couple was turned away for a wedding, but should requires the religious orgs to allow same sex partners as dependents, legal guardians, caretakers, etc.
i didnât read anything else about it yet. if they hamper future same-sex weddings from taking place, then itâs a bad bill that will require followup legislation
Congress doesnât have the power to force states to authorize same-sex marriage. Authority over marriage is the clear province of the states. This bill looks like it is mainly trying to create a federal enforcement mechanism for applying the full faith and credit clause to same-sex marriages in the event that Obergefell is overturned.
Doing more would have required court and other reforms that Dems failed to enact over their two years of having complete power. It beats nothing (Dem slogan TM)
Rather than nationalize, can they not force them to break up into separately owned companies?
Can only do that through the courts
See, e.g.
Jfc how hard can it be? Setup a drawing. Should be some way to make sure make sure everyone only gets to enter once. 4 tickets max.
Oh and string up anybody that is selling hundreds of tickets on the resale market.
Ticketmaster just does this directly now and gives the artists a cut.
Part of the problem is that Taylor Swift has a monopoly on being Taylor Swift
I think one of the reasons venues donât allow paper tickets is to guarantee no easy street scalping and the sports teams or artists get a kick-backâŚerr⌠cut.
Now can I get some of that oil?
2 Likes
Well, if you ask the average American, âWhich do you want?â
- Cheap gas
- MBS to pay for murdering some other brown dude
They pick #1 overwhelmingly. So, Biden is just being a populist really, albeit a hypocritical one.
I donât want to carry water for Joey B but I donât think itâs necessarily hypocritical to say that MBS is a huge scumbag and should even face consequences in the general sense and then later say that itâs probably a strategically good idea to not allow our court system to be used for lawsuits against heads of foreign states.
1 Like
I think itâs more like âhow many people is US Government killing overseas? Do I want to be sued for that?â
1 Like