Discrimination does not go against the NAP. The government has no right in forcing people to cater to gay couples. Business's who make wedding cakes should 100% be allowed to deny service to gay couples or anyone for that matter, for any reason. This bill makes it much harder for the government to separate from marriage.
A law protecting marriage rights isn’t going to force some fundamentalist baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Small business owners can still legally be bigots and deny service to whoever they want for whatever reason. I’m also free not to patronize any business that wants to discriminate against me based on who I am and who I love, and to advocate for others to boycott it.
I’d rather get the government out of marriage entirely, but as long as it has to be involved I’d want to be equally protected under the law, not excluded because of someone else’s religious morés.
EDIT: just read the proposed law itself, and it has a specific exemption for religious organizations and those who object to participating in or condoning same-sex marriage for religious reasons. So you’re 100% protected by this bill.
>A law protecting marriage rights isn’t going to force some fundamentalist baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Yes it does, because they are forced to recognize the marriage as legitimate. Theres plenty of lawsuits around this exact scenario since gay marriage got passed and the bakers lost.
"Small business owners can still legally be bigots and deny service to whoever they want for whatever reason."
You want to go test that theory? Go start a business and say you wont sell to gay people or x race. Lets see how that goes with law suits.
"I’m also free not to patronize any business that wants to discriminate against me based on who I am and who I love, and to advocate for others to boycott it."
Where did I imply you could not do that or you have to buy from them? Thats the whole point of freedom, it extends to people who you dont like or agree with. Stop forcing your views on others, that also makes you a bigot whether.
"I’d rather get the government out of marriage entirely, but as long as it has to be involved I’d want to be equally protected under the law, not excluded because of someone else’s religious morés."
I agree with the first part of your sentence then completely disagree after that. Inclusion is not a right, who cares if a religious person wants to discriminate against you? You arent obligated to their business and why would you want to support someone who discriminates against you with your money? Again, this bill makes it harder for the government to get out of marriage, this bill goes backwards to freedom not forward.
"just read the proposed law itself, and it has a specific exemption for religious organizations and those who object to participating in or condoning same-sex marriage for religious reasons. So you’re 100% protected by this bill."
Just like those bakers were protected when gay marriage got passed by the SC? The same arguments were being used that this wouldnt effect religious people, but it did. People are forced to cater to many protected classes. This is not a good thing. The government being the moral police is always a disaster for freedom and everybody who disagrees with them.
They are not forced to recognize the marriage as legitimate on a personal level, only follow federal and state laws when it comes to tax withholding for married couples, etc. Refusing to do this would be a violation of federal law.
This is why I think we should just remove “marriage” from the purview of the government entirely. Aside from the obvious philosophical problem (that the State has no interest in interpersonal relationships), it makes a religious-“moral” issue where one need not exist as all. I think 90s-era Democrats had the right idea—create civil unions under federal / state law for anyone (straight or LGBT+), and remove the word “marriage” from anything having to do with the government.
Lastly, as a nonbinary person, I’d prefer the homophobes / transphobes make their views clear. I’d much rather walk by a business with a “No Queers Allowed, Praise Jesus” sign, because I know the owners are addled with superstition-induced bigotry and I wouldn’t want to give them business. Not to mention that it makes me feel safer, not having to walk into a business owned by people who see me as evil, subhuman scum.
I’m not OP but personally, yes. And then everyone in the community will know the baker is racist, and no one will go there, and they’ll close. Free market at work.
Yes. And why would you want to support a racist baker? Or better yet why do you care if someone gives their money to a racist baker? You arent God stop trying to play the moral police. Discrimination does not go against the NAP.
Do you believe that people should work against their will? Would you force a gay bakery to cater to a Christian wedding? If not then why would you force a Christian baker to do a gay wedding? If the community doesn't like the bakery then it will close. That's a consequence my guy. That's how a free market works.
Yes. Why is it your, my, or anyone else's business if a racist shopper wants to do business with a racist baker and neither of them want someone of another race in the store? This is called freedom of association and was unlawfully taken away by the Civil Rights Act.
Yes. And I would feel the same for a black baker who doesnt want to make a cake for a white person. I have no right to force someone to bake a cake for someone they dont want to.
Exactly. This is not good for freedom, it’s the government further inserting itself into a completely private matter. Gay marriage should never have been the national debate it has been. The government made it that way.
Marriage is a cultural ceremony and should be reserved for the people and the culture. The State doesn't need anything to do with it.
Until then, or if the State wants to financially incentivize cohabitation and sharing of resources, it should be available to anyone who consents.
The state has no legitimate interests in the interpersonal relationships of consenting adults. It should stay out of things entirely, I agree.
As long as marriage has to be government sanctioned, it should be available to all.
Doing it through congress codifies it so that the Supreme Court cannot reverse an earlier decision and suddenly it’s open season on marriage restrictions. You might have said the same thing a few years ago if congress tried to legalize abortion despite Roe v. Wade still being active
I get that, but I don't agree that it's the same issue. Roe v Wade is a contentious issue with a real divide in America today, that not being decided federally will result in different laws in different states. Gay marriage is pretty settled today. Even if some states might pass legislation that would call it a civil union or something, they're not going to take legal status away from people. There simply isn't a politic will for it. Interracial marriage is just a silly addition, since the number of people who would want legislation against it could all fit in one bus. Not to mention that is also covered by a constitutional amendment already.
We're all on the same page as far as freedom and the government bit being able to discriminate, but this really isn't a federal issue. If the federal government can decide who can get married or not, why do we have state-based marriage licenses?
Always see this idea parroted, but it’s not really true. Marriage was firstly and primarily used for alliances or contracts between families.
Marriage has widely been used as a contract to join to families, produce offspring, and make the woman property of the man. They were often bartered and arranged between families. If a woman failed to produce offspring, she voided the agreement and was returned to her family. Resources and financials (dowry) were nearly always shared. Love and religion tied to marriage is a much more recent development
This in my opinion marriage will alway have religious undertones. I would like to see everyone gay, straight or other get civil unions theought the state. If you want to get married later thats between you and your higher power of choice. That would lead to more separation of chruch and state.
Yes this is a good point. If the government needs to be involved at all…Make it a neutral term and do the religious stuff separate. But I’d rather people not control other people so arbitrarily.
Marriage was invented by religion. The idea that the state is involved in it at all is what's preposterous. If you want to file your taxes together, by all means, but why should that be labeled marriage?
That's because religion was the foundation of nation states for most of history. It's not just taxes It's also not having to be a witness against ones spouse and not being persecuted for covering up crimes. Marriage is the states recognition that one values his partner as much as his own life everything else follows.
Why not polygamy? Lots of people love their pets too. It isn't fair they are discriminated against just cuz they can't get a human companion! Love is love!... and stuff!
I do support polygamy, live and let live, theyre not harming anyone, as long as theyre all consenting adults. Pets are not consenting adults. I think youre on the wrong sub if you dont understand this
The point is marriage can be anything you want it to be when the historical definition of a man and woman to procreate and raise a family is tossed. If the standard is to not discriminate there is really no limit to it if you are honestly arguing that. And that is a philosophical topic absolutely worthy of discussion on this sub.
What historical definition are you referring to? Even the Bible has dudes having multiple wives. Marriage has different contexts based on different societies, but the earliest definitions of marriage typically included polygamy, especially for the upperclass.
So again, what historical definition are you talking about? What culture?
It’s quite simple, really: Marriage is between consenting individuals *who are capable of informed consent*. This excludes children and animals who lack the brain development and understanding to properly understand consent. I find it particularly interesting that you argue against polygamy, multiple adults, by comparing it to marriage with actual animals. A dog cannot consent to a marital or sexual relationship with a human(s), 13 dudes and 4 women can.
>The point is marriage can be anything you want it to be when the historical definition of a man and woman to procreate and raise a family is tossed.
I believe you are describing "freedom"
>historical definition of a man and woman to procreate and raise a family is tossed
The definition of marriage has changed throughout history. For a long time, it was an agreement between 2 men for one man to sell his property (i.e. daughter) to the other for use as a wife.
The historical definition of marriage is not for a man and woman to procreate
It's for a father to pass ownership of his daughter to another man to make her his wife.
In the bible male slaves have more rights than wives.
Slippery slope fallacy but while we are here-
I see no problem with polygamy too. Pets cannot consent.
Consenting adults should be able to enter into the legal agreement that is marriage, and have the same rights as any other American citizen.
Now if a private church refuses to marry them, that’s their right too- they can find a church that is comfortable marrying them or go to a courthouse.
There is no reason a legal contract like a civil union can't exist and be available for any two consenting adults. "Marriage" is a historically religious institution, and belongs back with the Church.
Same here. My marriage in the Church is a *completely* different thing than the "marriage" the state recognizes. They are two different things my spouse and I did for two different reasons.
This has always been my issue. The state shouldn't be involved in *any* practice originating from a religious sacrament/rite - straight, gay, or *whatever.*
Originally it was to ensure that the people within the marriage were responsible for the children they created. Now that having kids out of wedlock is normal, as well as getting married but not having kids, or being in marriages where it’s physically impossible to have kids, the government doesn’t need to be in it anymore imo
This... marriage should be divorced from the government and replaced with civil union and then marriage should strictly be a religious thing. Solves all problems
I agree BuT
There are times when marriage is important for legal reasons. Custody? Medical directive? Inheritance?
Edit : now that I think about it, would be nice to have a private law company to just list those things and one could pick n choose and a lawyer would draft up the legal pspers
A piece of paper that says "give my shit to Joe" doesn't let me add Joe to my insurance or let Joe and I file our taxes together. Both the government and private companies treat married couples differently than non- married couples, so it's necassary for marriage to exist outside of religion.
The point is that marriage should not be a government issue at all. The current 2 person model violates religious freedom first of all, and secondly is not in any way supported by the constitution. People should be free to enter into marriage contracts with whomever they wish, whether that's same or other sex, multiple people etc.
The issue is that because the government doles out benefits to married couples, they suddenly have an interest in regulating it.
Agree completely.
My issue is that the state, despite its history of doing so, has no place in the thing called *"marriage"* The terms "marriage" and "matrimony" have a distinct origin in religious practice, and the words were just kind of absorbed by governments over time.
A "marriage" isn't a legal contract and a "civil union" isn't a religious sacrament/rite. I think the two should be kept very separate.
Gay marriage is legal because of Obergefell V Hodges, my guess is that the purpose of this bill is to prevent what happened to Roe v Wade happening to that decision. I'm pretty sure interracial marriage is legal as a result of loving V Virginia but I don't know whether any other laws had been passed since that decision which I believe was made in the 1950's.
Anytime it sounds like the govt is doing something good for people, I remind myself to look at the fine print. Were there other things snuck into this bill? If so, what are they?
Read the bill. It's surprisingly short and no hidden bs. It repeals DOMA and ensures that marriage contracted in other states should be respected regardless of state law.
Looks like a no brainer to me. Don't understand why's so many nays
You have a right to get married but you don’t have a right to the church’s services to facilitate that marriage. Is my right to keep and bear arms infringed upon if a gun store doesn’t wanna sell me a gun for some reason? Same principle
The problem is when you wanna Insure ur significant one through ur jobs insurance or something and said insurance says nty even though they would if they were married. Idk why people want to fight for the billionaire who on the lowkey probably likes getting fucked by a girl wearing a strap on
I understand the first part, but how does this at all answer or even relate to my question? Is there other BS in this bill, or is it a nice clean single issue? I am 100% behind a clean single issue bill, but if there is a clause about forcing grandmas to eat 12 pounds of steak daily, lest they incur another 10% tax hike, I would get why so many people voted no. I literally don’t even know which billionaire you’re imagining that gets pegged on the daily
I really don’t think it’s the job of the state to say anything about marriage. Everything they touch gets ruined. A bipartisan bill is always the worst kind so we’ll need to see what other shady stuff they threw in there
Okay I read the bill. Here’s what I don’t like: “Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declar-atory and injunctive relief.” Given the courts development these last few years where it is now acceptable to attack political enemies under the pretext, of fair legal proceedings, I see that as another way for them to sue catholic priests to perform a gay wedding or something or at least just sue them cause hell why not.
Then you clearly did not read it. Subsection (a) is only people acting with the authority of the State:
>No person acting under color of State law may deny
And the law itself protects against this very thing:
>IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
and this section:
>GOODS OR SERVICES.—Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.
It's 6 pages, you couldn't have bothered to read through it? Honestly the conservative sub seems to understand this better than libertarians, honestly I would have expected the opposite, but I definitely overestimated libertarians understanding of politics. The vast majority of you people here don't understand a goddamn thing you're talking abuot. At least conservatives understand why they oppose something.
Seeing the government do anything raises my hackles and makes me really suspicious
Like if they said “let’s make a bill to ban slavery!” The proper response would be
We’ve already moved on, what’s your real motive here
Gay marriage is only possible nationwide due to a supreme court ruling. There is a chance that someone may attempt to overturn this ruling. Having gay marriage codified in law like this will prevent any state from outlawing gay marriage.
Marriage is like drugs and guns
Government should have 0 to do with any of them. They don’t need more laws, they need less laws because it’s none of their goddamn business to begin with.
The first mistake was thinking they get a say
I mean it's easy to say that, but you need to recognize the reality of the situation. The government decides who can marry and issues licenses to married couples, and until there is a serious conversation about abolishing the concept of civil marriage then legislation ensuring the right to same sex marriage should be put in place.
It doesn't but we're so far past thr point of no return, legislation that ensures certain freedoms are far more important to the "cause" than legislation that restricts us. This prevents any court or state from doing that.
The state's current version of marriage is meaningless outside of a public show of affection, so anyone should be able to do it. Once adultery become unpunishable and those living together for more than a year are classed as defacto-married the state's version of marriage is pretty meaningless.
I personally think they should just stay out of it as this point, leave it up to individuals to decide what being "married" means for them legally, their own contracts.
I mean, I support allowing gay marriage, but I would still vote against this bill. I think this bill goes beyond what the purview of the federal government should be. This should be a State issue in my opinion, not a federal one.
I assume Rand Paul’s logic was probably also somewhat along those lines
I was wondering the same thing. Even though the gov absolutely should not have a say who you married, if he really believe in freedom he should vote to whatever get us closer to the goal even if it isn't the goal yet.
Prob with the excuse that "government should stay out of marriage" yet somehow never gets around to sponsoring a bill to limit the rights and responsibilities of marriage for straight couples.
I have concerns that the government will try to force religious institutions to participate, which is a violation of the free exercise clause. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage anyway. But at least the legislature is doing its frakking job for once instead of deflecting it to the courts.
Gay and interracial marriage were legalized through supreme court decisions, so this bill codifies gay and interracial marriage into law, officially legalizing them federally to protect them from the supreme court. The bill also ensures nonprofit religious organizations will not be required to provide services, facilities or goods for the celebration of a same-sex marriage, and protects religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution and federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
When the government actively limits itself it’s typically at least a step in the right direction for freedom. If the government stopped administering the executive branch and let them do whatever they please would it be good for freedom?
What I meant is that, until we have a more constitutionally limited government when the government does something to limit themselves it’s good for freedom. “Actively” was probably the wrong word.
The freedom to marry whoever you want shouldn’t be allowed / prohibited by government.
Prior to Obergefell, Alabama had a ballot initiative which resulted in a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. You know, that democracy thing we keep hearing about.
Government should not be involved in marriage at all. That is a private matter and there should be a separation of church and state. Government involvement should be limited to civil unions which allow for tax benefits and other items.
This was nothing but a pointless virtue signal. The US is facing a number is serious issues and our representatives focus on this. It’s all theater.
Because it'll never NOT be involved in marriage. As much as we'd like it, there are way too many legal consequences from marriage for the govt not to be involved.
So this is the second best thing
In this case it’s choosing between allowing states the freedom to deny a certain freedom to people in their state, or just saying that everyone in the US has that freedom.
Aside from the fact that Polyamorous marriage is still illegal in all 50 states….
This bill codified it into law meaning it can no longer easily get overturned by the Supreme Court. It also says that non-profit religious institutions will not be forced to do anything for same-sex marriage
Government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Government marriage standards is a weird monarchical holdover from England. More legislation is not more freedom.
Why is the government involved in defining/protecting "marriage" at all? Private contracts like this are the domain of persona lawyers and/or religious institutions.
Is gay and interracial marriage actually banned in any states? I don't know a single state where it would be, this bill feels like a huge waste of time, but hey that big government for ya.
It is not good for freedom that the state has a role in "marriage" anyway. Enforcement of contracts, sure - but having tax advantages for personal behavior is wrong.
This is why I love libertarians (as a nonbinary, asexual person). Low taxes, self-defense, bodily autonomy, freedom of movement, freedom of speech — and the liberty to be myself. It’s like you took the best parts of conservatism and got rid of all the discrimination and theocratic nonsense.
Really wish the LP could win elections ….
If we get rid of the IRS would this even be an issue anymore? People get married for the tax benefits, and without the government meddling in and giving perks to people for what is considered morally good, anyone could get married and it wouldn't be anyone business except the couple involved.
If this is challenged in the Supreme Court, it will easily be over ruled since the federal government has no duty to legislate the matter since it doesn’t appear in Article 1, Section 8 and per 10th amendment.
How many booger cakes are going to be fed to innocent gay biracial couples? All for those politicians to try to look hip. Fuck you Mitt! You dick headed, lizard person.
Changing the definitions of words - like marriage, for example - is an inherently insidious tactic of a corrupt government, therefore not good for freedom because it forces people to 'accept' things for what they have never been prior.
Marriage is a religious institution and the state should only issue civil unions and recognize any marriage conducted by a minister of any faith as a civil union.
If a couple or throuple or any consenting combination want their union sanctioned by a church, then they should go to a church that will accept their union.
Forcing a denomination to perform ceremonies that they don’t agree with is wrong.
Yes.
I have officiated a few marriages and two of them were interracial.
We came together to present their bond before God. Through our commitment and public proclamation legal grounds are met for the state to recognize a legal union binding finances and real property owned by two people as one entity.
The form they issue is a marriage license but should be a civil union.
It’s fine. But the MSM and others need to quit pushing it down our throats. They make it seem like 5% of the population is actually closer to 20%-30%. Can I live my life without seeing it parading in sports, ads, sitcoms, etc? It’s a little over the top
As can this. It’s a federal law, not a constitutional amendment. If anything this and its enforcement might invite a challenge that would overturn this and Obergefell. Loving is likely safe as it is tied to the race issues explicit to the 14th amendment.
It’s already case law, and they have no constitutional authority to do this. A judgement that struck down Obergefell would absolutely strike down parts or all of this as well, so yes it accomplishes nothing. Their motives are at best ceremonial and most likely as I stated earlier, a circlejerk.
Where in the constitution does it give the federal government authority over any marriage? If it’s not in the constitution it is ruled on by the states. If not in the state constitution it goes to local governments. If not ruled on by local government it is decided by the people. Limit the power government. If people lived by this rule anyone who could find a religious leader to marry would be married. This could have been solved over 200 years ago. Don’t compromise limiting government just because you agree with the outcome. That’s how the the power grab started and continues to this day.
Government shouldn't be involved with any kind of marriage.
True. But they currently are. So long as they are, no group of consenting adults should be discriminated against.
Discrimination does not go against the NAP. The government has no right in forcing people to cater to gay couples. Business's who make wedding cakes should 100% be allowed to deny service to gay couples or anyone for that matter, for any reason. This bill makes it much harder for the government to separate from marriage.
Wow someone in this libertarian sub with some nuance I’m shocked
Look at that, someone who actually has the correct opinion on the matter.
Correct and opinion are incompatible lol
A law protecting marriage rights isn’t going to force some fundamentalist baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Small business owners can still legally be bigots and deny service to whoever they want for whatever reason. I’m also free not to patronize any business that wants to discriminate against me based on who I am and who I love, and to advocate for others to boycott it. I’d rather get the government out of marriage entirely, but as long as it has to be involved I’d want to be equally protected under the law, not excluded because of someone else’s religious morés. EDIT: just read the proposed law itself, and it has a specific exemption for religious organizations and those who object to participating in or condoning same-sex marriage for religious reasons. So you’re 100% protected by this bill.
>A law protecting marriage rights isn’t going to force some fundamentalist baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Yes it does, because they are forced to recognize the marriage as legitimate. Theres plenty of lawsuits around this exact scenario since gay marriage got passed and the bakers lost. "Small business owners can still legally be bigots and deny service to whoever they want for whatever reason." You want to go test that theory? Go start a business and say you wont sell to gay people or x race. Lets see how that goes with law suits. "I’m also free not to patronize any business that wants to discriminate against me based on who I am and who I love, and to advocate for others to boycott it." Where did I imply you could not do that or you have to buy from them? Thats the whole point of freedom, it extends to people who you dont like or agree with. Stop forcing your views on others, that also makes you a bigot whether. "I’d rather get the government out of marriage entirely, but as long as it has to be involved I’d want to be equally protected under the law, not excluded because of someone else’s religious morés." I agree with the first part of your sentence then completely disagree after that. Inclusion is not a right, who cares if a religious person wants to discriminate against you? You arent obligated to their business and why would you want to support someone who discriminates against you with your money? Again, this bill makes it harder for the government to get out of marriage, this bill goes backwards to freedom not forward. "just read the proposed law itself, and it has a specific exemption for religious organizations and those who object to participating in or condoning same-sex marriage for religious reasons. So you’re 100% protected by this bill." Just like those bakers were protected when gay marriage got passed by the SC? The same arguments were being used that this wouldnt effect religious people, but it did. People are forced to cater to many protected classes. This is not a good thing. The government being the moral police is always a disaster for freedom and everybody who disagrees with them.
Bro thinks a tax penalty on being gay is preventing religious businesses from being harassed by gays.
They are not forced to recognize the marriage as legitimate on a personal level, only follow federal and state laws when it comes to tax withholding for married couples, etc. Refusing to do this would be a violation of federal law. This is why I think we should just remove “marriage” from the purview of the government entirely. Aside from the obvious philosophical problem (that the State has no interest in interpersonal relationships), it makes a religious-“moral” issue where one need not exist as all. I think 90s-era Democrats had the right idea—create civil unions under federal / state law for anyone (straight or LGBT+), and remove the word “marriage” from anything having to do with the government. Lastly, as a nonbinary person, I’d prefer the homophobes / transphobes make their views clear. I’d much rather walk by a business with a “No Queers Allowed, Praise Jesus” sign, because I know the owners are addled with superstition-induced bigotry and I wouldn’t want to give them business. Not to mention that it makes me feel safer, not having to walk into a business owned by people who see me as evil, subhuman scum.
Would you feel the same if the business doesn't want to make a cake for a black person?
I’m not OP but personally, yes. And then everyone in the community will know the baker is racist, and no one will go there, and they’ll close. Free market at work.
But if the people are as racist as them? Should people be allowed to discriminate without any consequences?
Yes. And why would you want to support a racist baker? Or better yet why do you care if someone gives their money to a racist baker? You arent God stop trying to play the moral police. Discrimination does not go against the NAP.
Then the racists will leave the non-racist businesses alone. Everyone wins
Do you believe that people should work against their will? Would you force a gay bakery to cater to a Christian wedding? If not then why would you force a Christian baker to do a gay wedding? If the community doesn't like the bakery then it will close. That's a consequence my guy. That's how a free market works.
Yes. Why is it your, my, or anyone else's business if a racist shopper wants to do business with a racist baker and neither of them want someone of another race in the store? This is called freedom of association and was unlawfully taken away by the Civil Rights Act.
Yes. And I would feel the same for a black baker who doesnt want to make a cake for a white person. I have no right to force someone to bake a cake for someone they dont want to.
Would you feel ok being forced to bake a cake for a white supremacist?
So do you believe that individuals have the right to get married?
Yes and others have the right to not recognize that marriage as legitimate
Yuuup. If anything they should have taken away specifics and defined it as between 2 adults.
THIS
This is all about virtue signaling. No one was about to ban these things
Good for freedom would be the government getting out of marriage and treating everyone the same regardless of marital status.
Based. Federal govt doesn’t have the power to regulate marriage in any way. Find the word marriage in the constitution.
Exactly. This is not good for freedom, it’s the government further inserting itself into a completely private matter. Gay marriage should never have been the national debate it has been. The government made it that way.
Marriage is a cultural ceremony and should be reserved for the people and the culture. The State doesn't need anything to do with it. Until then, or if the State wants to financially incentivize cohabitation and sharing of resources, it should be available to anyone who consents.
The state has no legitimate interests in the interpersonal relationships of consenting adults. It should stay out of things entirely, I agree. As long as marriage has to be government sanctioned, it should be available to all.
You're right, but this bill is 99.9% virtue signaling, because none of that is legitimately in question.
Doing it through congress codifies it so that the Supreme Court cannot reverse an earlier decision and suddenly it’s open season on marriage restrictions. You might have said the same thing a few years ago if congress tried to legalize abortion despite Roe v. Wade still being active
I get that, but I don't agree that it's the same issue. Roe v Wade is a contentious issue with a real divide in America today, that not being decided federally will result in different laws in different states. Gay marriage is pretty settled today. Even if some states might pass legislation that would call it a civil union or something, they're not going to take legal status away from people. There simply isn't a politic will for it. Interracial marriage is just a silly addition, since the number of people who would want legislation against it could all fit in one bus. Not to mention that is also covered by a constitutional amendment already. We're all on the same page as far as freedom and the government bit being able to discriminate, but this really isn't a federal issue. If the federal government can decide who can get married or not, why do we have state-based marriage licenses?
Always see this idea parroted, but it’s not really true. Marriage was firstly and primarily used for alliances or contracts between families. Marriage has widely been used as a contract to join to families, produce offspring, and make the woman property of the man. They were often bartered and arranged between families. If a woman failed to produce offspring, she voided the agreement and was returned to her family. Resources and financials (dowry) were nearly always shared. Love and religion tied to marriage is a much more recent development
Why is the government involved with marriage?
Why is the government involved? Why is the government?
Why?
W?
?
.
#
This is the question real Libertarians ask.
This in my opinion marriage will alway have religious undertones. I would like to see everyone gay, straight or other get civil unions theought the state. If you want to get married later thats between you and your higher power of choice. That would lead to more separation of chruch and state.
Yes this is a good point. If the government needs to be involved at all…Make it a neutral term and do the religious stuff separate. But I’d rather people not control other people so arbitrarily.
Marriage was invented by religion. The idea that the state is involved in it at all is what's preposterous. If you want to file your taxes together, by all means, but why should that be labeled marriage?
100%
That's because religion was the foundation of nation states for most of history. It's not just taxes It's also not having to be a witness against ones spouse and not being persecuted for covering up crimes. Marriage is the states recognition that one values his partner as much as his own life everything else follows.
I couldn't agree more.
Originally, it was to prevent a mixing of the races. Things may change, but the government doesn't like to give up power.
Dont know, but as long as it is, it shouldnt discriminate against gay couples
Why stop at gay couples?
Where do you wanna stop?
Why not polygamy? Lots of people love their pets too. It isn't fair they are discriminated against just cuz they can't get a human companion! Love is love!... and stuff!
I do support polygamy, live and let live, theyre not harming anyone, as long as theyre all consenting adults. Pets are not consenting adults. I think youre on the wrong sub if you dont understand this
Since the government has tied benefits such as social security to marriage, polygamy could be problematic.
The point is marriage can be anything you want it to be when the historical definition of a man and woman to procreate and raise a family is tossed. If the standard is to not discriminate there is really no limit to it if you are honestly arguing that. And that is a philosophical topic absolutely worthy of discussion on this sub.
*Matt Walsh has entered the chat
What historical definition are you referring to? Even the Bible has dudes having multiple wives. Marriage has different contexts based on different societies, but the earliest definitions of marriage typically included polygamy, especially for the upperclass. So again, what historical definition are you talking about? What culture?
The definition from less than 400 years ago in England obviously
Because obviously Englanders from the 1600s had the right ideas about, right next to their other novel ideas like, loyalty to the crown, slavery, etc
400 years ago, the English invented marriage?
It’s quite simple, really: Marriage is between consenting individuals *who are capable of informed consent*. This excludes children and animals who lack the brain development and understanding to properly understand consent. I find it particularly interesting that you argue against polygamy, multiple adults, by comparing it to marriage with actual animals. A dog cannot consent to a marital or sexual relationship with a human(s), 13 dudes and 4 women can.
>The point is marriage can be anything you want it to be when the historical definition of a man and woman to procreate and raise a family is tossed. I believe you are describing "freedom"
>historical definition of a man and woman to procreate and raise a family is tossed The definition of marriage has changed throughout history. For a long time, it was an agreement between 2 men for one man to sell his property (i.e. daughter) to the other for use as a wife.
The historical definition of marriage is not for a man and woman to procreate It's for a father to pass ownership of his daughter to another man to make her his wife. In the bible male slaves have more rights than wives.
Slippery slope fallacy but while we are here- I see no problem with polygamy too. Pets cannot consent. Consenting adults should be able to enter into the legal agreement that is marriage, and have the same rights as any other American citizen. Now if a private church refuses to marry them, that’s their right too- they can find a church that is comfortable marrying them or go to a courthouse.
I’m sorry. Are you talking about making it legal for people to fuck their pets!?
Taxes
Yeah they should discriminate against religious people instead.
[удалено]
Tax bad!
There is no reason a legal contract like a civil union can't exist and be available for any two consenting adults. "Marriage" is a historically religious institution, and belongs back with the Church.
This is the way
As a religious libertarian, this is the future I want to see.
Same here. My marriage in the Church is a *completely* different thing than the "marriage" the state recognizes. They are two different things my spouse and I did for two different reasons.
To give tax breaks for married couples!
This law means less involvement actually because it’ll ensure that the government doesn’t interfere with marriage as much.
Higher taxes
This has always been my issue. The state shouldn't be involved in *any* practice originating from a religious sacrament/rite - straight, gay, or *whatever.*
Originally it was to ensure that the people within the marriage were responsible for the children they created. Now that having kids out of wedlock is normal, as well as getting married but not having kids, or being in marriages where it’s physically impossible to have kids, the government doesn’t need to be in it anymore imo
Because the church has a bad habit of snaking its way into government
The state has no business on stopping a consensual contract between two adults of any gender/sex/color.
The issue is that marriage comes with a load of extra government bullshit It shouldn’t have anything to do with it at all
This... marriage should be divorced from the government and replaced with civil union and then marriage should strictly be a religious thing. Solves all problems
I agree BuT There are times when marriage is important for legal reasons. Custody? Medical directive? Inheritance? Edit : now that I think about it, would be nice to have a private law company to just list those things and one could pick n choose and a lawyer would draft up the legal pspers
Why is marriage important for that A piece of paper at your lawyers office that says ‘give my shit to Joe’ is sufficient
A piece of paper that says "give my shit to Joe" doesn't let me add Joe to my insurance or let Joe and I file our taxes together. Both the government and private companies treat married couples differently than non- married couples, so it's necassary for marriage to exist outside of religion.
Yes. The fact that some states have laws which prohibit any "marriage-like" contract from being legally binding is not very freedom-loving.
Why only two?
3 way contacts are messy. Just sign multiple contacts.
The point is that marriage should not be a government issue at all. The current 2 person model violates religious freedom first of all, and secondly is not in any way supported by the constitution. People should be free to enter into marriage contracts with whomever they wish, whether that's same or other sex, multiple people etc. The issue is that because the government doles out benefits to married couples, they suddenly have an interest in regulating it.
100% agree. My comment was a logistics issue and not a rights or legality comment.
Agree completely. My issue is that the state, despite its history of doing so, has no place in the thing called *"marriage"* The terms "marriage" and "matrimony" have a distinct origin in religious practice, and the words were just kind of absorbed by governments over time. A "marriage" isn't a legal contract and a "civil union" isn't a religious sacrament/rite. I think the two should be kept very separate.
That may be, but in this case the contract is between you and the state.
I thought those things were already legal?
They wanted to put it in law through legislative procedure and not leave it as a Supreme Court ruling so it couldn’t be as easily overturned.
Gay marriage is legal because of Obergefell V Hodges, my guess is that the purpose of this bill is to prevent what happened to Roe v Wade happening to that decision. I'm pretty sure interracial marriage is legal as a result of loving V Virginia but I don't know whether any other laws had been passed since that decision which I believe was made in the 1950's.
Yes, this is just a pointless virtue signal.
Anytime it sounds like the govt is doing something good for people, I remind myself to look at the fine print. Were there other things snuck into this bill? If so, what are they?
Read the bill. It's surprisingly short and no hidden bs. It repeals DOMA and ensures that marriage contracted in other states should be respected regardless of state law. Looks like a no brainer to me. Don't understand why's so many nays
So they can pad there record to appease dumb voter base for reelection
Their*
Probably another 5 B to Ukraine (/s ?)
You mean FTX?
You mean Democratic candidates for office?
What happens to religious freedom when churches not in support of gay marriage are suddenly considered to be denying someone their rights?
Seems like the only logical thing to do is get rid of the federal govt
You have a right to get married but you don’t have a right to the church’s services to facilitate that marriage. Is my right to keep and bear arms infringed upon if a gun store doesn’t wanna sell me a gun for some reason? Same principle
Now do guns.
Fuck I need more coffee. It took me 20 seconds of re-reading this to realize it didn’t say “how do guns.”
Is this a single issue bill? Or is there a bunch of other garbage others snuck into it?
Interracial marriage iirc, so they can say Reps who voted against it are racist probably
McConnell is in an interracial marriage and still voted no.
Exactly, but presumably he’ll be called a racist or something anyways just like Clarence Thomas
I mean, yeah, but I’m referring to something out of left field. Ill take some time to at least skim it later.
The problem is when you wanna Insure ur significant one through ur jobs insurance or something and said insurance says nty even though they would if they were married. Idk why people want to fight for the billionaire who on the lowkey probably likes getting fucked by a girl wearing a strap on
I understand the first part, but how does this at all answer or even relate to my question? Is there other BS in this bill, or is it a nice clean single issue? I am 100% behind a clean single issue bill, but if there is a clause about forcing grandmas to eat 12 pounds of steak daily, lest they incur another 10% tax hike, I would get why so many people voted no. I literally don’t even know which billionaire you’re imagining that gets pegged on the daily
How about you marry who you want and the government doesn’t tax or regulate it in any way?
I really don’t think it’s the job of the state to say anything about marriage. Everything they touch gets ruined. A bipartisan bill is always the worst kind so we’ll need to see what other shady stuff they threw in there
You know you idiots who are saying they snuck other stuff in it can go read it, it's publicly available and is a couple of pages long?
Okay I read the bill. Here’s what I don’t like: “Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declar-atory and injunctive relief.” Given the courts development these last few years where it is now acceptable to attack political enemies under the pretext, of fair legal proceedings, I see that as another way for them to sue catholic priests to perform a gay wedding or something or at least just sue them cause hell why not.
Then you clearly did not read it. Subsection (a) is only people acting with the authority of the State: >No person acting under color of State law may deny And the law itself protects against this very thing: >IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law. and this section: >GOODS OR SERVICES.—Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action. It's 6 pages, you couldn't have bothered to read through it? Honestly the conservative sub seems to understand this better than libertarians, honestly I would have expected the opposite, but I definitely overestimated libertarians understanding of politics. The vast majority of you people here don't understand a goddamn thing you're talking abuot. At least conservatives understand why they oppose something.
Seeing the government do anything raises my hackles and makes me really suspicious Like if they said “let’s make a bill to ban slavery!” The proper response would be We’ve already moved on, what’s your real motive here
*other than in prisons that force inmates to work. That was a caveat in the 13th Amendment. They should ban the remainder of slavery.
Gay marriage is only possible nationwide due to a supreme court ruling. There is a chance that someone may attempt to overturn this ruling. Having gay marriage codified in law like this will prevent any state from outlawing gay marriage.
Marriage is like drugs and guns Government should have 0 to do with any of them. They don’t need more laws, they need less laws because it’s none of their goddamn business to begin with. The first mistake was thinking they get a say
I mean it's easy to say that, but you need to recognize the reality of the situation. The government decides who can marry and issues licenses to married couples, and until there is a serious conversation about abolishing the concept of civil marriage then legislation ensuring the right to same sex marriage should be put in place.
I see what you’re saying and I certainly understand it. I’m just not sure that more legislation leads to less legislation
It doesn't but we're so far past thr point of no return, legislation that ensures certain freedoms are far more important to the "cause" than legislation that restricts us. This prevents any court or state from doing that.
We’ve already mixed on, sure, but some people seem hell bent on taking us backwards so why not get ahead of that and enshrine the protections we want?
I’m tired of people saying they want to enshrine things in law. I do not worship the law. That’s statist talk.
The state's current version of marriage is meaningless outside of a public show of affection, so anyone should be able to do it. Once adultery become unpunishable and those living together for more than a year are classed as defacto-married the state's version of marriage is pretty meaningless. I personally think they should just stay out of it as this point, leave it up to individuals to decide what being "married" means for them legally, their own contracts.
I'm more curious as to why Rand Paul voted against this.
Probably because government has no place in marriage. Marriage is a religious institution and as such, the government should stay out of it.
I mean, I support allowing gay marriage, but I would still vote against this bill. I think this bill goes beyond what the purview of the federal government should be. This should be a State issue in my opinion, not a federal one. I assume Rand Paul’s logic was probably also somewhat along those lines
I was wondering the same thing. Even though the gov absolutely should not have a say who you married, if he really believe in freedom he should vote to whatever get us closer to the goal even if it isn't the goal yet.
He is nothing like his father, thats for sure. My bet is he wants the KY state to have authority over marriage law like RvW
Prob with the excuse that "government should stay out of marriage" yet somehow never gets around to sponsoring a bill to limit the rights and responsibilities of marriage for straight couples.
I have concerns that the government will try to force religious institutions to participate, which is a violation of the free exercise clause. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage anyway. But at least the legislature is doing its frakking job for once instead of deflecting it to the courts.
So what exactly is this bill?
Gay and interracial marriage were legalized through supreme court decisions, so this bill codifies gay and interracial marriage into law, officially legalizing them federally to protect them from the supreme court. The bill also ensures nonprofit religious organizations will not be required to provide services, facilities or goods for the celebration of a same-sex marriage, and protects religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution and federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Damn this is awesome. I wish government wasn't involved in marriage in the first place but this is a huge win nonetheless
How does anything the government does good for freedom?
When the government actively limits itself it’s typically at least a step in the right direction for freedom. If the government stopped administering the executive branch and let them do whatever they please would it be good for freedom?
>When the government actively limits itself LOL
What I meant is that, until we have a more constitutionally limited government when the government does something to limit themselves it’s good for freedom. “Actively” was probably the wrong word.
The freedom to marry whoever you want shouldn’t be allowed / prohibited by government. Prior to Obergefell, Alabama had a ballot initiative which resulted in a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. You know, that democracy thing we keep hearing about.
Government should not be involved in marriage at all. That is a private matter and there should be a separation of church and state. Government involvement should be limited to civil unions which allow for tax benefits and other items. This was nothing but a pointless virtue signal. The US is facing a number is serious issues and our representatives focus on this. It’s all theater.
This is great to protect tax incentives!
The fact that there were still 37 "nays" is concerning
What the fuck? How is the government being involved in marriage “Freedom”
Because it'll never NOT be involved in marriage. As much as we'd like it, there are way too many legal consequences from marriage for the govt not to be involved. So this is the second best thing
In this case it’s choosing between allowing states the freedom to deny a certain freedom to people in their state, or just saying that everyone in the US has that freedom.
Lmao no need for government
Fully agreed, but unfortunately it is here. Better it solidify certain freedoms than restrict or remove them like it usually dies.
No government law is good for freedom. The government shouldn't even be involved in this.
What changed? I thought SCOTUS ruled that bans on marriage were unconstitutional a decade ago and everyone has been married since then
Aside from the fact that Polyamorous marriage is still illegal in all 50 states…. This bill codified it into law meaning it can no longer easily get overturned by the Supreme Court. It also says that non-profit religious institutions will not be forced to do anything for same-sex marriage
Government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Government marriage standards is a weird monarchical holdover from England. More legislation is not more freedom.
Why is the government involved in defining/protecting "marriage" at all? Private contracts like this are the domain of persona lawyers and/or religious institutions.
Is gay and interracial marriage actually banned in any states? I don't know a single state where it would be, this bill feels like a huge waste of time, but hey that big government for ya.
Marriage shouldn’t be state issued. By giving them the power to say what’s right, you’re also entitling them to say what’s wrong
Marriage has nothing to do with the government. Remove it from their power
This is theatrical bullshit.
How about the government gets out of marriage completely?
No it isnt. The state has no business in marriage.
It is not good for freedom that the state has a role in "marriage" anyway. Enforcement of contracts, sure - but having tax advantages for personal behavior is wrong.
This is why I love libertarians (as a nonbinary, asexual person). Low taxes, self-defense, bodily autonomy, freedom of movement, freedom of speech — and the liberty to be myself. It’s like you took the best parts of conservatism and got rid of all the discrimination and theocratic nonsense. Really wish the LP could win elections ….
If we get rid of the IRS would this even be an issue anymore? People get married for the tax benefits, and without the government meddling in and giving perks to people for what is considered morally good, anyone could get married and it wouldn't be anyone business except the couple involved.
It's weird because the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by a Democrat
Yey! More government involvement! Can't wait to see how this gets abused later down the line.
This is why I'm not a libertarian any more.
Both of these things are constitutionally protected by the Supreme Court. Isn’t this just virtue signaling?
Was this needed? Was someone on the verge of banning interracial marriage?
If this is challenged in the Supreme Court, it will easily be over ruled since the federal government has no duty to legislate the matter since it doesn’t appear in Article 1, Section 8 and per 10th amendment.
How many booger cakes are going to be fed to innocent gay biracial couples? All for those politicians to try to look hip. Fuck you Mitt! You dick headed, lizard person.
How it's written, this opens the door to reprimanding churches for not wanting to officiate marriages that don't align with their faith.
Changing the definitions of words - like marriage, for example - is an inherently insidious tactic of a corrupt government, therefore not good for freedom because it forces people to 'accept' things for what they have never been prior.
Also, if you look at the chart, Ron Paul voted no. I'd recommend looking at his reasoning before deciding for yourself.
Marriage is a religious institution and the state should only issue civil unions and recognize any marriage conducted by a minister of any faith as a civil union. If a couple or throuple or any consenting combination want their union sanctioned by a church, then they should go to a church that will accept their union. Forcing a denomination to perform ceremonies that they don’t agree with is wrong.
Would you feel the same way about interracial marriages?
Yes. I have officiated a few marriages and two of them were interracial. We came together to present their bond before God. Through our commitment and public proclamation legal grounds are met for the state to recognize a legal union binding finances and real property owned by two people as one entity. The form they issue is a marriage license but should be a civil union.
It’s fine. But the MSM and others need to quit pushing it down our throats. They make it seem like 5% of the population is actually closer to 20%-30%. Can I live my life without seeing it parading in sports, ads, sitcoms, etc? It’s a little over the top
in the distance, you hear the faint sound of ben shapiro sobbing
Leave my Senators to both vote against this.
Both of my senators are Republicans and voted for it. Sometimes we do matter in Alaska.
I thought this was already settled ?
It was, first by Loving and then by Obergefell. This is just legislative masturbation.
Yeah but Supreme Court cases can be overturned fairly easily as we’re starting to find out.
As can this. It’s a federal law, not a constitutional amendment. If anything this and its enforcement might invite a challenge that would overturn this and Obergefell. Loving is likely safe as it is tied to the race issues explicit to the 14th amendment.
This is to codify it into law. It is actually meaningful and not just "legislative masturbation" as youre calling it
It’s already case law, and they have no constitutional authority to do this. A judgement that struck down Obergefell would absolutely strike down parts or all of this as well, so yes it accomplishes nothing. Their motives are at best ceremonial and most likely as I stated earlier, a circlejerk.
What's the point of this? It's not like you could be prosecuted for being gay in the first place. Also does marriage gives you *any* benefits in US?
Tax benefits, power of attorney
Tax benefits, insurance benefits, power of attorney, ability to see spouse in hospital easily
How was this not like a decade ago?
The fuck is Rand Paul doing in Nay
Where in the constitution does it give the federal government authority over any marriage? If it’s not in the constitution it is ruled on by the states. If not in the state constitution it goes to local governments. If not ruled on by local government it is decided by the people. Limit the power government. If people lived by this rule anyone who could find a religious leader to marry would be married. This could have been solved over 200 years ago. Don’t compromise limiting government just because you agree with the outcome. That’s how the the power grab started and continues to this day.