Posted on Jul 19, 2022
House to vote on same-sex marriage in an effort to push back against court
591
14
6
8
8
0
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/19/ [login to see] /house-vote-same-sex-marriage
The House is set to vote to protect same-sex and interracial marriages, a direct confrontation with the Supreme Court, whose conservative majority in overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access has sparked concerns that other rights enjoyed by countless Americans may be in jeopardy.
Tuesday's vote in the House is part political strategy setting up an election-year roll call that will force all lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, to go on the record with their views on the high-profile social issue. It's also part of the legislative branch asserting its authority, pushing back against an aggressive court that appears intent on revisiting many settled U.S. laws.
"As this Court may take aim at other fundamental rights, we cannot sit idly by," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the chairperson of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.
The House is set to vote to protect same-sex and interracial marriages, a direct confrontation with the Supreme Court, whose conservative majority in overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access has sparked concerns that other rights enjoyed by countless Americans may be in jeopardy.
Tuesday's vote in the House is part political strategy setting up an election-year roll call that will force all lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, to go on the record with their views on the high-profile social issue. It's also part of the legislative branch asserting its authority, pushing back against an aggressive court that appears intent on revisiting many settled U.S. laws.
"As this Court may take aim at other fundamental rights, we cannot sit idly by," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the chairperson of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.
House to vote on same-sex marriage in an effort to push back against court
Posted from npr.org
Rights
Supreme Court
Marriage
Same Sex Marriage
LGBTQ+
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
1
1
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."The liberals added: "Either the mass of the majority's opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other."
In a letter to House Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi previewed the House votes related to same-sex marriage and contraception as a counter to the Supreme Court.
"This week, the House will pass two more bills to protect freedom in our nation, as extremist Justices and lawmakers take aim at more of our basic rights," she wrote. "Our Right to Contraception Act will preserve the essential protections found in Griswold v. Connecticut. Our Respect for Marriage Act -- which, proudly, is bipartisan and bicameral -- will defend the right to marry whomever you love, as found in Obergefell v. Hodges and Loving v. Virginia."
..."The liberals added: "Either the mass of the majority's opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other."
In a letter to House Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi previewed the House votes related to same-sex marriage and contraception as a counter to the Supreme Court.
"This week, the House will pass two more bills to protect freedom in our nation, as extremist Justices and lawmakers take aim at more of our basic rights," she wrote. "Our Right to Contraception Act will preserve the essential protections found in Griswold v. Connecticut. Our Respect for Marriage Act -- which, proudly, is bipartisan and bicameral -- will defend the right to marry whomever you love, as found in Obergefell v. Hodges and Loving v. Virginia."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Nadler should have said "as this Court WILL take aim at other fundamental rights..." Thomas already stated that.
(1)
(0)
Patricia Overmeyer
SrA John Monette: Except he conspicuously left out the Loving case, which was decided on the same fundamental privacy rights that allowed doctors to discuss sexual health with their patients, allowed contraceptives, abortion, same-sex marriage, private family matters (i.e. having your grandchildren live with you, having a right to determine how to raise your child, etc.), the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, the right to determine to end life saving medical treatment. There are even more rights I could name, but this USSC only wants to go after "certain" privacy rights which they deem should not be held. It will be interesting to see them twist the logic pretzel for those other privacy rights when they come up before the court.
(1)
(0)
SrA John Monette
Patricia Overmeyer - Of course he left out Loving. Because that would make his marriage invalid and illegal. This just goes to show how the right is becoming more and more fascist. They want to dictate everything we do. If they were to overturn Loving, they would probably make it so that everyone who was married after a certain date, probably the day after clarence and his wife got married, was null and void, if not downright illegal.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google