The same-sex marriage bill and its supporters in the House of Representative Biden and the Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Alaska, and other states
Multiple sources told CNN that the bipartisan group working on the same-sex marriage bill has the votes needed for it to pass and is urging leadership to vote on the bill as soon as possible.
The bipartisan group, which includes GOP Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said in a statement Monday that they “look forward to this legislation coming to the floor.”
But the bill’s supporters said in September that more time was needed to negotiate the issue with Republicans – and sought to delay any vote in the Senate until after the November midterm elections, which Schumer agreed to.
So, in the event the Supreme Court might overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage, a state could still pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would also be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.
The legislation to protect same-sex marriage is one of the last bills Nancy Pelosi will help pass while she is the speaker, she wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post.
American public opinion has shifted so quickly on almost no other issue. Biden has a grandchild who identifies as LGBTQ.
Biden added: “I look forward to welcoming them at the White House after the House passes this legislation and sends it to my desk, where I will promptly and proudly sign it into law.”
But the public rallying and push to pass federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriage intensified this year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, sparking fresh fears that the nation’s highest court would also reconsider other existing rights around marriage equality.
Several conservative members of the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic on Monday to arguments from a graphic designer who seeks to start a website business to celebrate weddings but does not want to work with same-sex couples.
The conservative justices viewed the case through the lens of free speech and suggested that an artist or someone creating a customized product could not be forced by the government to express a message that violates her religious beliefs.
The same-sex marriage bill signing event at the White House: It is not about Roe and choice, it is about contraception
The White House is planning to mark the occasion with a ceremony built to a scale that it believes is fitting of the moment, with one official saying in the days leading up to Tuesday that it was planning to simply “go all out.”
The bill was signed at the White House in front of prominent members of the gay community and activists. They include, according to a White House official, Judy Kasen-Windsor, widow of gay rights activist Edie Windsor; Matthew Haynes, co-owner of Club Q, the LGBTQ club in Colorado Springs where a gunman last month killed five people in a mass shooting; Club Q shooting survivors James Slaugh and Michael Anderson; and a number of plaintiffs from cases that culminated in the landmark civil rights case Obergefell vs. Hodges, in which the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that same-sex couples can marry nationwide.
It was expected that the bill-signing event would include a discussion about the cultural transformation that occurred after the Biden answer to “Meet the Press” about same-sex marriage.
Basking in the hero-treatment from liberal activists, Biden would go on to aggressively associate himself with LGBT causes in the years to come, and has in particularly been “unusually bold” when it comes to transgender rights, Issenberg said.
He would go on to give similar warnings on the campaign trail leading up to the midterms: “We want to make it clear: It’s not just about Roe and choice. Same-sex marriage is about. It’s about contraception. He said at the Democratic National Committee reception in August that there was a lot of things on the docket.
David Bohnett, a donor and gay rights activist who has been a supporter of Biden, told CNN that the bill Signing could not have come at a more important time.
What have we learned about same-sex marriages? A revisit of Biden’s struggle in the 1990s, when the Defense of Marriage Act was repealed
That long journey is one Biden and the country have been on together. In 2004, just 42% of Americans said they were in support of same-sex marriage, according to Gallup. Today, it’s 68%, according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll to be released Thursday.
A dozen Republican senators and 39 Republican House members voted in favor of the legislation. That’s not a majority of Republicans, and it’s reflective of the fact that rank-and-file Republican voters have not been as supportive of same-sex marriage.
In 2004, according to Gallup, just 19% of Republicans were in favor. This week’s NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found now that number has more than doubled to 43%, but is still shy of a majority.
When Gallup asked the question in 1958, 4% said they approved of marriage between black and white people. Americans were still split on the topic through the 90s.
Back in 1967, just 3% of Americans were in interracial marriages, and that’s up to at least 19%, as of last year, according to the Pew Research Center.
“My gut reaction is they are security risks,” Biden said, “but I haven’t given this much thought.”
The push for gay rights in the 1990s was hurt when Biden voted to cut off funding for public schools that supported homosexuality, as an alternative to the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA defined marriage as between a man and a woman and blocked federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Now, as president, Biden rebuked the Florida law that constrains teachers talking about sexual orientation or gender identity, calling it “hateful” and vowed to “continue to fight for the protections and safety you deserve.”
Marriage is about who you love. Biden said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “And will you be loyal to the person you love? … Whether they’re marriages of lesbians, gay men or heterosexuals.
Democrats were ready to give legal rights to gays in civil unions, but they weren’t ready to say yes to marriage because of politics.
I would have liked to have done it my own way without the notice to everyone. “Yes”, Obama said. “Sure, but all’s well that ends well.”
Curtis Chin: An Ambassador for the Faith of Our Nation and a Bi-Racial Preamble to Los Angeles (where we met)
Editor’s Note: Curtis Chin, a co-founder of the Asian American Writers’ Workshop, is a filmmaker and author of the forthcoming memoir, “Everyone I Learned, I Learned in a Chinese Restaurant.” He was director of outreach for the Democratic National Committee and served on President Barack Obama’s Asian American Leadership Committee during his 2008 campaign. His views are his own. CNN has an opinion on it.
The email we received last week was an impact, even though each invitation has been joyfully received. The upcoming ceremony in our nation’s capital was not just about two individuals but spoke to the commitment of a nation to its citizens and how much more is needed to make that commitment fully worthy of an all out celebration.
The gathering felt like a wedding. The environment was electric. People from all over the country came in. We flew from Los Angeles on a redeye. We got to see some of the people we hadn’t seen in a long time, as well as hearing great music, courtesy of Lauper and Smith. Hope was in the air for a better future. All were there to celebrate (yes, they even played Kool & The Gang’s wedding staple).
I was made to reflect on what my relationship has been through after listening to the President talk about his own journey on same-sex marriage. Like all married couples, we’ve had our ups and downs, including figuring out where to live when we first met, and dealing with finances. We have faced additional challenges imposed by our own government and we have done our best to navigate these struggles.
The first was in 2008. During that election cycle, I was so busy serving on Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign to help elect our nation’s first bi-racial president that I didn’t pay enough attention to Proposition 8, an initiative to limit the definition of marriage in the California constitution to heterosexual couples, especially since the polling looked like it was going to fail. Then in the fall, when proponents began scaring suburban moms with ads about the threat to their children, suddenly, we began to fear what if.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/14/opinions/respect-for-marriage-act-signing-chin/index.html
When Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizations Overturned the Supreme Court Gamma(alpha_s) Revisited
Our concern grew so that Jeff and I held a wedding in the office of a public official we knew, attended by his sister and nephew and one of our closest friends. While we were happy to be able to tie the knot, we weren’t celebratory. We didn’t go out for lunch.
We canceled our reception and ceremony out of respect for our friends and community who had recently lost the right to vote after Prop 8 narrowly passed. There were no Chinese wedding banquets for us.
We didn’t tell a lot of people about our changed relationship status outside of our family and friends. As our marriage stayed hidden in the closet, we still had to navigate a whole bunch of other things affected by government policy like hospital visits, taxes, and inheritance. Things came to head when we began exploring starting a family through the foster care and adoption system, only to face hurdles and disapproving judgment from a government case worker assigned to us. (I will save those gory details for another essay.)
But, this summer, when the US Supreme Court ‘s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade, it threw the concept of precedent out the door, immediately threatening rights that had been considered settled by the Court decades ago as well as ones more recently established. The longest serving member of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, made it clear in his concurring opinion that in future cases, they should reconsider all of the Court’s substantive due process precedents.