Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
Pseudo-environmental grifting. That's what this is.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2020
Article: https://longisland.news12.com/house-approves-same-sex-marriage-bill-retort-to-high-court
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/2022072...s-same-sex-marriage-bill-retort-to-high-court
----------------------------------------------------
House passes same-sex marriage bill in retort to high court
The U.S. House overwhelmingly approved legislation Tuesday to protect same-sex and interracial marriages amid concerns that the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access could jeopardize other rights criticized by many conservative Americans.
In a robust but lopsided debate, Democrats argued intensely in favor of enshrining marriage equality in federal law, while Republicans steered clear of openly rejecting gay marriage. Instead leading Republicans portrayed the bill as unnecessary amid other issues facing the nation.
Tuesday's election-year roll call, 267-157, was partly political strategy, forcing all House members, Republicans and Democrats, to go on the record with their views. It also reflected the legislative branch pushing back against an aggressive court that has sparked fears it may revisit apparently settled U.S. laws.
“For me, this is personal,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., who said he was among the openly gay members of the House.
“Imagine telling the next generation of Americans, my generation, we no longer have the right to marry,” he said. “Congress can't allow that to happen.”
Wary of political fallout, GOP leaders did not direct their lawmakers to hold the party line against the bill, aides said. Dozens of Republicans joined Democrats in voting for passage.
While the Respect for Marriage Act is expected to pass the House, with a Democratic majority, it is almost certain to stall in the evenly split Senate, where most Republicans would likely join a filibuster to block it. It's one of several bills, including those enshrining abortion access, that Democrats are proposing to confront the court's conservative majority Another bill, guaranteeing access to contraceptive services, is set for a vote later this week.
The Biden administration issued a statement of support for the marriage bill.
Polling shows a majority of Americans favor preserving rights to marry whom one wishes, regardless of the person's sex, gender, race or ethnicity, a long-building shift in modern mores toward inclusion.
A Gallup poll in June showed broad and increasing support for same-sex marriage, with 70% of U.S. adults saying they think such unions should be recognized by law as valid. The poll showed majority support among both Democrats (83%) and Republicans (55%).
Approval of interracial marriage in the U.S. hit a six-decade high at 94% in September, according to Gallup.
“The extremist right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has put our country down a perilous path,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., in a floor speech setting Tuesday’s process in motion.
“It’s time for our colleagues across the aisle to stand up and be counted. Will they vote to protect these fundamental freedoms? Or will they vote to let states take those freedoms away?”
But Republicans insisted Tuesday that the court was only focused on abortion access in June when it struck down the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade ruling, and they argued that same-sex marriage and other rights were not threatened.
In fact, of all the Republicans who rose to speak during the morning debate, almost none directly broached the subject of same-sex or interracial marriage.
"We are here for a political charade, we are here for political messaging,” said Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
As several Democrats spoke of inequalities they said that they or their loved ones had faced in same-sex marriages, the Republicans talked about rising gas prices, inflation and crime, including recent threats to justices in connection with the abortion ruling.
Even as it passed the House with Republican votes, the outcome in the Senate is uncertain.
“I’m probably not inclined to support it,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. “The predicate of this is just wrong. I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to overturn any of that stuff.”
For Republicans in Congress the Trump-era confirmation of conservative justices to the Supreme Court fulfilled a long-term GOP goal of revisiting many social, environmental and regulatory issues the party has been unable to tackle on its own by passing bills that could be signed into law.
But in a notable silence, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declined to express his view on the bill, leaving an open question over how strongly his party would fight it, if it even comes up for a vote in the upper chamber.
“I don’t see anything behind this right now other than, you know, election year politics,” said the GOP whip, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota.
The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal a law from the Clinton era that defines marriage as a heterogeneous relationship between a man and a woman. It would also provide legal protections for interracial marriages by prohibiting any state from denying out-of-state marriage licenses and benefits on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.
The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, had basically been sidelined by Obama-era court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the rights of same-sex couples to marry nationwide, a landmark case for gay rights.
But last month, writing for the majority in overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito argued for a more narrow interpretation of the rights guaranteed to Americans, noting that the right to an abortion was not spelled out in the Constitution.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas went further, saying other rulings similar to Roe, including those around same-sex marriage and the right for couples to use contraception, should be reconsidered.
While Alito insisted in the majority opinion that “this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” others have taken notice.
“The MAGA radicals that are taking over the Republican Party have made it abundantly clear they are not satisfied with repealing Roe,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., referring to Trump's backers.
He pointed to comments from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who said over the weekend that the Supreme Court’s decision protecting marriage equality was “clearly wrong” and state legislatures should visit the issue.
But Schumer did not commit to holding a vote on the bill.
Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and now running as a Democrat for the Ohio House, said after the court's ruling on abortion, "When we lose one right that we have relied on and enjoyed, other rights are at risk.”
----------------------------------------------------
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/2022072...s-same-sex-marriage-bill-retort-to-high-court
----------------------------------------------------
House passes same-sex marriage bill in retort to high court
The U.S. House overwhelmingly approved legislation Tuesday to protect same-sex and interracial marriages amid concerns that the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access could jeopardize other rights criticized by many conservative Americans.
In a robust but lopsided debate, Democrats argued intensely in favor of enshrining marriage equality in federal law, while Republicans steered clear of openly rejecting gay marriage. Instead leading Republicans portrayed the bill as unnecessary amid other issues facing the nation.
Tuesday's election-year roll call, 267-157, was partly political strategy, forcing all House members, Republicans and Democrats, to go on the record with their views. It also reflected the legislative branch pushing back against an aggressive court that has sparked fears it may revisit apparently settled U.S. laws.
“For me, this is personal,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., who said he was among the openly gay members of the House.
“Imagine telling the next generation of Americans, my generation, we no longer have the right to marry,” he said. “Congress can't allow that to happen.”
Wary of political fallout, GOP leaders did not direct their lawmakers to hold the party line against the bill, aides said. Dozens of Republicans joined Democrats in voting for passage.
While the Respect for Marriage Act is expected to pass the House, with a Democratic majority, it is almost certain to stall in the evenly split Senate, where most Republicans would likely join a filibuster to block it. It's one of several bills, including those enshrining abortion access, that Democrats are proposing to confront the court's conservative majority Another bill, guaranteeing access to contraceptive services, is set for a vote later this week.
The Biden administration issued a statement of support for the marriage bill.
Polling shows a majority of Americans favor preserving rights to marry whom one wishes, regardless of the person's sex, gender, race or ethnicity, a long-building shift in modern mores toward inclusion.
A Gallup poll in June showed broad and increasing support for same-sex marriage, with 70% of U.S. adults saying they think such unions should be recognized by law as valid. The poll showed majority support among both Democrats (83%) and Republicans (55%).
Approval of interracial marriage in the U.S. hit a six-decade high at 94% in September, according to Gallup.
“The extremist right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has put our country down a perilous path,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., in a floor speech setting Tuesday’s process in motion.
“It’s time for our colleagues across the aisle to stand up and be counted. Will they vote to protect these fundamental freedoms? Or will they vote to let states take those freedoms away?”
But Republicans insisted Tuesday that the court was only focused on abortion access in June when it struck down the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade ruling, and they argued that same-sex marriage and other rights were not threatened.
In fact, of all the Republicans who rose to speak during the morning debate, almost none directly broached the subject of same-sex or interracial marriage.
"We are here for a political charade, we are here for political messaging,” said Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
As several Democrats spoke of inequalities they said that they or their loved ones had faced in same-sex marriages, the Republicans talked about rising gas prices, inflation and crime, including recent threats to justices in connection with the abortion ruling.
Even as it passed the House with Republican votes, the outcome in the Senate is uncertain.
“I’m probably not inclined to support it,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. “The predicate of this is just wrong. I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to overturn any of that stuff.”
For Republicans in Congress the Trump-era confirmation of conservative justices to the Supreme Court fulfilled a long-term GOP goal of revisiting many social, environmental and regulatory issues the party has been unable to tackle on its own by passing bills that could be signed into law.
But in a notable silence, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declined to express his view on the bill, leaving an open question over how strongly his party would fight it, if it even comes up for a vote in the upper chamber.
“I don’t see anything behind this right now other than, you know, election year politics,” said the GOP whip, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota.
The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal a law from the Clinton era that defines marriage as a heterogeneous relationship between a man and a woman. It would also provide legal protections for interracial marriages by prohibiting any state from denying out-of-state marriage licenses and benefits on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.
The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, had basically been sidelined by Obama-era court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the rights of same-sex couples to marry nationwide, a landmark case for gay rights.
But last month, writing for the majority in overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito argued for a more narrow interpretation of the rights guaranteed to Americans, noting that the right to an abortion was not spelled out in the Constitution.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas went further, saying other rulings similar to Roe, including those around same-sex marriage and the right for couples to use contraception, should be reconsidered.
While Alito insisted in the majority opinion that “this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” others have taken notice.
“The MAGA radicals that are taking over the Republican Party have made it abundantly clear they are not satisfied with repealing Roe,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., referring to Trump's backers.
He pointed to comments from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who said over the weekend that the Supreme Court’s decision protecting marriage equality was “clearly wrong” and state legislatures should visit the issue.
But Schumer did not commit to holding a vote on the bill.
Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and now running as a Democrat for the Ohio House, said after the court's ruling on abortion, "When we lose one right that we have relied on and enjoyed, other rights are at risk.”
----------------------------------------------------
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2018
Yeah, the (((elite))) have chosen EV as the only option going forward. Part of that is the grift because they invested heavily, partly out of the environmental cult aspects (since they aren't environmentally friendly) and of course from the Great Reset/Neofeudalism drive to keep plebians from freely travelling.
A shame, too, since the focus on EV has all but strangled development of much more promising technology like Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which have the potential to be much greener and easier to integrate into existing infrastructure.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2016
The more pain we are all experiencing from the high price of bread, the more benefit there is for those who can access cake.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
@SSF2T Old User
Aren't Obergefell and Loving protected under the Equal Protection Clause, causing this bill to be completely redundant/pointless?
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2021
The Silent Generation is generally defined as people born between 1928 and 1945. Biden was born in 1942, so he falls in that group of people even if he is at the tail end of it. As for Trump he was born in 1946, so yes he is a baby boomer but he is also in the oldest group of them. As for the generation who fought in World War 1, I think you're referring to the Lost Generation not the Silent Generation.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2019
Its funny how most leftists all over, including here, are turning against Biden because it got to the point where its impossible to defend him even for their standards.
Oh of course they wont take any responsibility for having voted this potato fucktard into office, no, people taking responsibility for who they voted for? Prff...
Im just saying that if you actually ask actual people at this point about our so called "insurrection", they will say "it wasnt but we sure as fuck wished it was and Trump was running the show."
And this isnt a Pro Trump thing, Im only saying Trump because he was the only other alternative at the moment.
People are dumb and reactive, they blame the bad things that happened on their president when it might not be his fault as much as they want to believe because they want to believe that the solution is as simple as "putting the other guy in". The Covid Pandemic happened and people automatically pinned everything on Trump because it was comfortable to believe that.
They throw "smart takes" like "At least with the democrats, I had food on the table". Because thats all that matters of these people, the short term.
So now we are stuck with this clown show of an admistration and the people that put him there will defend themselves by either denying that they did or say that they "didnt know" and are now trying to remove him.
These last years have been showing that the people are truly their own worst enemy.
Oh of course they wont take any responsibility for having voted this potato fucktard into office, no, people taking responsibility for who they voted for? Prff...
Im just saying that if you actually ask actual people at this point about our so called "insurrection", they will say "it wasnt but we sure as fuck wished it was and Trump was running the show."
And this isnt a Pro Trump thing, Im only saying Trump because he was the only other alternative at the moment.
People are dumb and reactive, they blame the bad things that happened on their president when it might not be his fault as much as they want to believe because they want to believe that the solution is as simple as "putting the other guy in". The Covid Pandemic happened and people automatically pinned everything on Trump because it was comfortable to believe that.
They throw "smart takes" like "At least with the democrats, I had food on the table". Because thats all that matters of these people, the short term.
So now we are stuck with this clown show of an admistration and the people that put him there will defend themselves by either denying that they did or say that they "didnt know" and are now trying to remove him.
These last years have been showing that the people are truly their own worst enemy.
namelesstacotruck
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
Student loans start back up in 50 days without any statement of action from Biden admin.
I cant see them actually starting them back up 2 months before an election.
Only scenario i can see them doing it is them trying to pass some doomed bill and blame the GOP but the progs have already promised they will blame the Dems if they get fucked on this and are convinced it can be done purely by executive order and thus no excuses ( and they seem to be correct on that! Forgiveness of debts does lie within the executive from what i can read)
My guess is that there is parts of the Dems who want them to resume because it will help with inflation if they start back up. (Alot less money people have to spend) And also the payments were supposed to pay for Obamacare. But the other part realize that fucking over a big part of their base 2 months before mid terms is mind numbingly idiotic.
Im thinking the plan is kick the can till January then try to blame Republican congress.
I cant see them actually starting them back up 2 months before an election.
Only scenario i can see them doing it is them trying to pass some doomed bill and blame the GOP but the progs have already promised they will blame the Dems if they get fucked on this and are convinced it can be done purely by executive order and thus no excuses ( and they seem to be correct on that! Forgiveness of debts does lie within the executive from what i can read)
My guess is that there is parts of the Dems who want them to resume because it will help with inflation if they start back up. (Alot less money people have to spend) And also the payments were supposed to pay for Obamacare. But the other part realize that fucking over a big part of their base 2 months before mid terms is mind numbingly idiotic.
Im thinking the plan is kick the can till January then try to blame Republican congress.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
Oh shit, you're right, my bad.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
Not to go "Well, ackshually...". but the Silent Generation are the ones who were born during the Great Depression, they were too young to fight in WWII and too old to be Baby Boomers, and smaller than both the generation before them (Greatest Generation) or after (Boomers) and didn't have as much of a voice in the culture in mid and late 20th Century America.
The Silent Generation has a lot of parallels with Generation X.
On a bit of a side tangent, a lot of the shit that Boomers get blamed for is usually the fault of either the Silent Generation or the older cohort of Generation X when you go in for a deeper dive instead of jumping on the Boomer hate train (a trend Gen X invented and the Millennials and Zoomers blindly ran with). Make of that what you will.
The generation who fought during WWI were The Lost Generation, so it's very common to mix them up with the Silent Generation
EDIT - Ninja'd by @Breadbassket
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2020
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
At this point my guess is they'll do another postponement to kick the can down the road then at some point in 2023 they'll ramp up on forgiving a certain amount, because it's pretty much all he has to sell to most of the zoomers these days. Whether he'll succeed or not is a different story.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
Democratic certainly works.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
Companies like profits. Car companies make profit by selling cars. By switching to EVs, they threaten to lose profits by people just opting out of cars entirely since the battery cost more than the car. So why use battery cells and not develop hydrogen cells? Are they just nearsighted? Retarded?
Because if you have neofeudaliam, you lose your market, period. You're stuck with the small groups of elites forever since they won't let up on the feudalism shit. And the elites only have their power due to their money. And once pretty much every market dries up, you lose your income and eventually your money.
I don't understand. I guess I'm not as big brained as these WEF elites
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2016
Their approach to controversies like this has always been to deny it and keep the conflicting groups separate. The Basketball-Americans and buttplumbers exist in mostly separate spheres and the Democrats just need to make sure it stays that way. Joggers are an incurious bunch and they're fine voting for Dems who push Drag Queen Story Hour as long as Pete Buttigieg isn't actually rolling through their hood and offering their kids a car ride and a pack of Newports. None of the LGBTBBQ advocacy targets the ghettoes (except for foster care, kind of, but those kids have no parents to speak for them) so harmony in the Democrat tent is maintained.I think it’s safe to say that the DNC will swiftly act to quash anything that jeopardizes the nog voting bloc. If they find that their pro-pedo/-troon/-policies are turning off the nogs (black men will turn away before black women), they’ll drop the rainbow brigade like a hot potato. It doesn’t look like they’re ready to do that yet, since they’ve really only started saying the quiet part aloud recently- it’ll take some time for the resentment to really build to where this can be revisited.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
That wont work anymore. Since these new sjws want intersectionality. So black people will be force to deal with the lgbt. And there's only so much you can ignore before these sjw will fly off the handle, call them nigger, tell them to get back on the plantation, and suck that girl dick.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2020
I mean if Reddit and the SCOTUS Roe v Wade decision is anything to go by, they are already throwing out NIGGER like it's going out of style.
Everyone knows SJWs are professionals at projection, it was only a matter of time befroe they started spewing the same stuff they ridicule the right for doing on those nasty "toxic" no-no sites.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
Only due to interpretation by the Court. There’s no legislation passed by Congress on those issues, so if a Supreme Court rules against those cases, they become null on the federal level. If a state had laws on the books covering the rights in Obergefell and Loving, they are still on the books because of the 10th amendment.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
sadly, a significant amount of people just repeat what they see on tv. Trump's approval went up during the worst of covid when he had his conferences. the media noticed this and stopped broadcasting them, instead they had some NY bozo.
now, they'll happily repeat that talking about inflation is bad cuz it helps the bad people the tv doesn't like
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
That goes beyong the auto industry.
Larry Fink of BlackRock, arguably the most powerful investment firm in the world, has decreed that companies will be divested from if they don't sufficiently virtue-signal:
This fucker may have more influence than Schwab and Soros.
Last edited:
- Status