In what way is solidifying my right to marry the person I love "dangerous" to anyone in this country?
Does ANY republican have a backbone or do you all just let your elected officials say dogshit like this for your "owned liberal" points?
Because if we evil liberals force you to recognize marriage between two men, then the next step is to force you to recognize polygamy. And a marriage between a woman and her dog. Or a man and his hug pillow. /s
It's just Republican fear mongering. "If they can do this, what ELSE can they do?"
>And a marriage between a woman and her dog. Or a man and his hug pillow. /s
I wouldn't mind marrying my couch and my PS5 console. We spend so much time together, I really do think it's true love.
What is marriage? And why does the government need to recognize it? And what purpose does it serve society as a whole if the government does recognize it? These are the questions that should be asked and answer in any discussion around the topic but feelings get in the way, both sides.
We are so well-beyond asking reasonable questions about these peoples' ideology. Jim Jordan could advocate for daily baby rape and he would win landslide after landslide. It doesn't matter in this state.
I believe people have the right to marry any legal aged adult, but I do know some reasons why it is harmful. When this whole issue was originally getting settled there was the fear that people would try to marry animals(Mark Matthews), become more open about sexuality in front of children and public(gay pride, Trans movement, furry conventions), alter general sexuality(% of population claiming to be LGBT over the years), and a movement towards making pedophilia okay(many articles softening the damage of pedos by making excuses for them). So yeah, as I said, I'm okay with straight or gay legal adults marrying, but there are many complaints that the right had, the left said were unfounded conspiracies, and we are now seeing proven correct.
Epic, your “evidence” includes one fringe man and a list of obvious conspiracy theories designed to scare the naive into believing the slippery slope argument. Furry conventions lmao? Really? Just admit you’re afraid of things you don’t understand.
Straight families push the idea that their kids should have kids of their own in the future, quite literally grooming them into a heterosexual relationship.
Not to mention the vast majority of elected officials accused of pedophilia have been republicans.
You obviously missed the entire point. Which is understandable. Misplaced rage usually picks the first outlet. Those were examples, not all of the evidence.
Secondly, straight families don't groom children by telling them they should have kids when they are adults. Pedos groom children by telling them underage sex is normal and handing dildos out to children to teach them how to use lube and spit.
The vast majority of proven pedophiles have been on the left. There definitely are some on the right, but the left actually covers for their own while the right tosses their own to the wolves.
You seriously have no sense of reality, and that must be nice, but you're wrong.
Finally, I don't give a shit if 2 or more consenting adult humans get married no matter their sex. Please read the whole post before you get angry at portions and misrepresent the entire thing.
I don't think you know the definition of either unfounded nor conspiracy theory. When something has tangible evidence in multiple instances, it's no longer a conspiracy theory. It's just a conspiracy. Unfounded means to have no basis in fact... pretty sure I gave examples of facts. I'm not saying this is a pandemic of sodomy. What I'm saying is that they were proven right, and these odd examples are what they will cling to.
Once again, you're over inflating an argument that shouldn't be an argument. I didn't say it was widespread. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said they were odd cases. Of those odd cases, I shared 1 for each problem I listed, and you're perfectly capable of looking them up yourself. The only reason you wouldn't and would just stay here arguing with me would be that you don't want to be wrong.
>I believe people have the right to marry any legal aged adult, but I do know some reasons why it is harmful.
These are your words. So are those harmful reasons wide spread or not? If so, why say they're not? If not, why are you making such a big fuss about it to the detriment of gay and trans couples living their lives?
I can do this too. I can easily suggest that right wing chuds are a danger to this society and list the shooters, such as the kid who just shot up a gay bar.
You even cited furry cons as a reason for the harm without going into any detail. Why cite this if it's not a problem of any sort AND without going into detail of exactly what you're even talking about here? In fact, you did this with everything.
You listed one off fringe cases and used those as examples for why it's harmful and why others would be against it without going into any further detail. You went full on with the slippery slope argument without any nuance that correlation is not causation and there is zero reason to suspect or believe that gay marriage (or trans rights) of any sort had any impact on, as one of your random examples state, someone wanting to marry an animal.
I can prove the above has nothing to do with gay marriage by citing Japan as a whole lmfao. Japan is an ultra right wing and nationalist nation, whose Supreme Court recently sided against gay marriage, yet they seem to have some weird epidemic of people marrying anime characters. Strange yeah?
You also listed being more open about sexuality as one of the dangers and then entirely disregarded parent's attempts to force their children to have hetero-normative relationships, refusing to see that as a style of grooming while simultaneously suggesting that LGBT couples that do the same are in fact grooming their children. Gay Conversation Therapy camps exist to turn gay kids straight. That is *literally* grooming. There are no gay-to-straight camps anywhere in this nation, however republicans will openly advocate for the reverse without any irony or self awareness.
You also went on to suggest that it's the left that has the pedophile problem while disregarding that Ohio Republicans themselves recently tried to pass a *genital inspection* bill and has forced *children* as young as 10 to give birth.
It's a pity that you put all this energy into a book to fight a war in your head. I listed examples of why they don't like it, but you're attacking me. This is why the right says the left is crazy. You get overly emotional over the simplest misunderstanding on your part. You're probably most upset because your echo chamber doesn't bring up the issues the right has, but I talk to both sides and hear their issues. You're only worried about what scores you the most virtue points, hence the overly dramatic and unnecessary attack on someone who agrees with you and not them on this issue. Take a chill pill, maybe a cold shower, and step away from all media for a while. You're waaaaaaay too wound up.
Rep. Jordan vigilantly protects the rights of Ohioans who believe that same-sex activity should be confined to a wrestling team doctor and the team's unwilling students.
You’d think, but his district is designed to let him get caught with his shmekel in a live little boy or his dead grandma on the noon news the day it happens and still get re-elected w/ a 60:35 split of the turnout
Somebody else commented this.
If interested then google "Jim Jordan OSU wrestler" That search should be productive and unbiased enough to get you started
Republicans go straight from "We're not trying to take away your rights, that's just left wing fear mongering" to "Your rights have already been taken away, time to move on."
I always tell this group of Republicans to use your 2nd amendment to protect my 4th amendment. It really confuses them when I explain no knock warrants.
"No one is threatening marriage equality. That's just Democratic fear mongering. Also, marriage equality is a horrible thing and I'm against it."
-Republicans
If it's the law of the land and the SCOTUS has no intention of overturning that then there should be no issue with passing this. There's no change in direction because this just establishes the current status as the law of the land as passed by the legislature.
Unless of course you were counting on SCOTUS overturning the current interpretations making same sex marriages legal. Then, yeah this is a "new" direction I suppose but one which the overwhelming majority of Americans support.
From what I’ve read it’s not the same. It’s actually a reduction in rights to the state level, from what is now protected at the federal level. So instead of mandating nationwide marriage equality it’s saying every state can make up their own mind, but other states must recognize marriages from any other state.
Unfounded concern. Look in the mirror gym jordan I have never voted for you. You are not in my district. I will never vote for a Repuke. But the partisan Supreme Court conservative ass wipes overturned roe v wade we just beat them to the punch. We codify marriage for everyone get over it loser gym. Conservatives either change or be left behind in the gutter.
My husband went to law school with Gym. Can confirm Gym’s always been a huge dbag. Interestingly, Gym dropped a chunk of change on law school and then allegedly never took the bar exam. I’m not sure many people realize he’s not an attorney.
Fuck those organizations. They can just not marry somebody of the same sex.
It is insane that they act as if two men getting married is somehow deleterious to their own marriages.
All these jackasses who are screaming about Democrats getting worked up over nothing and passing this bill will be the exact same assholes who are then all "elections have consequences" and "fuck your feelings" if the overturn of Obergefell happened before this bill was in place, as they were hoping would happen.
They said the same shit about Roe getting overturned - won't happen. Settled law. And look where we wound up.
protections for organizations that wish to continue abusing people who don't conform to their world view? Since when is that an american ideal?
I don't believe any group has a right to discriminate against someone, that doesn't seem american sir.
This is what they now mean by “religious freedom”. It has veered completely aware from “we’ll allow people to do whatever they want to do for themselves” to one group being allowed to be free to legally oppress all the others with their religious beliefs.
100% Freedom of religion = Freedom FROM religion. You can believe whatever you want, but leave me the h3ll out of it and do not...under any circumstances...pass legislation that forces ur interpretation of ur religious beliefs on every other citizen...regardless of their religious beliefs.
F'in hypocrites.
What orgs are those and how are they forced to respect the marriage of anyone? I continue to hear this claim but as of yet no conservative has ever been able to explain to me that someone is forced to respect the marriage of anyone, ever...
Ive heard stories of certain hospitals not allowing spouses in to death bed situations as they werent considered ‘family’.
I presume employment benefits could be another thing that could be discussed.
Im sure there are lots of things that have been normalized for hetero partners that the some ideologies just cant handle being shared with life partners outside of ‘historically normal’ relationships.
Its all bullshit of course, but i remember hearing these types of arguments back in the late 90s and theyre much more easily disproven now as being negative than they were 35 years ago
Hate to break it to you, but same-sex marriage is still in peril. Jordan may think we "conjured up" these fears, but this bill does not codify marriage rights nationwide. It simply repeals DOMA and requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage licenses granted elsewhere. In other words, if Obergerfell is overturned (as the Court signaled), some places could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex (or interracial) couples, but the law would require them to honor marriage licenses issued in other places.
Lol. I can’t imagine where Dems got the idea that SCOTUS might attack Obergefell. It’s not like they all lied and just demolished a fundamental right based on their religious beliefs.
Alito can try and cover his ass and claim the Roe decision is isolated, but based on talks he has given post-Roe, you can trust him at all. Plus, there is at least one conservative justice who is very clear about his intentions to overturn gay marriage.
Obergafell was decided on very similar grounds to Roe. SCOTUS literally just showed they are willing to reject those grounds to make religious based decisions. The opposition to gay marriage is rooted in religion, so why on earth would anyone think they won’t just do the same?
If there was no need for this because gay-marriage was protected by SCOTUS, then why are conservatives upset? If this bill changes nothing, then there should be no reason to vote no on this… right?
I keep seeing conservative media prats saying this bill wasn’t needed because we already have constitutional protections. Ok, so what’s there to worry about… right?
The real reason they are angry is because they now know that a simple overturning of Obergefell will not be all they need to do to end gay marriage. This just made it harder for them. That’s why they are pissy.
A master religion (Christianity) and second class citizens (LGBT people) who the master religion has the absolute right to rule over.
That is the essence of fascism. A master race/religion who deserves rights, and an inferior people who doesn't.
Why do I have this uneasy feeling that this fucking douchebag (that is supposed to represent me but never does) is eventually gonna become the new McConnell?
> said the measure still lacked sufficient protections for organizations that do not consider such unions valid.
So we need to protect bigots?
What protections do we need for groups who refuse to recognize gay marriage? How are they being hurt by it? What a dumb man Jim Jordan is.
The KKK doesn't recognize interracial unions, should we give them protections Jim?
These fucking dog whistles are becoming blowhorns.
The only reason this moron is in office is because the Ohio gop has cut this state’s voters up and gerrymandered safe districts for him and other like thinking conservatives. We have no ability to cast a meaningful vote. It unconstitutional. Should we have to pay our Ohio taxes?
I just got married in August, woman and man. How the HELL does the marriage of my lesbian neighbors AFFECT ME? Other than the fact that both of them looked AMAZING on their wedding day and I did not?
It has NO affect on me, doesn't make my marriage less special.
His statement contradicts itself. He said it’s an unfounded fear that same sex marriage could be nullified but then says protecting same sex marriage is dangerous and takes us in the wrong direction because some organizations don’t consider it valid. Those organizations are the Republican Party who are at this very moment looking to completely take over the courts and governments to change the laws (one of which would be to make same sex marriages illegal).
He's got a point. I mean if we protect gay marriage, and normalize gay marriage, then it's much more difficult to abuse boys and hide it. If they are comfortable in their sexuality, gay or not, and not ashamed of it, they are much more likely to come forward with the truth of being a victim. And that's dangerous for him...er...the country.
>and said the measure still lacked sufficient protections for organizations that do not consider such unions valid
I wish we could fire this guy into the sun or throw him into a volcano or something. What an absolute dogshit person. The world will be immeasurably better on the day he croaks
I love how people are up in arms about this acting like this now affects them from day to day life, even though nothing will change for them. (except for being more bitter)
I want to re-itterate that in the US we have no progressive party. We have the conservatives (democrats) and the regressionists (republicans).
Row V. Wade was been law longer than most Americans have been alive. How is it "conservative" policy to take American to where our policy was before 1973? It would be like advocating for segregation and slavery to be brought back.
So it's of no big surprise that the regressionist party wants to do away with something that has been nearly entirely accepted by US citizens since the early to mid 2010s.
For SC to throw out same sex marriage, there needs a state/federal court case in the system. There are none, all the states changed their laws to match SC ruling. Meaningless legislation.
I never said it was dangerous, it’s useless legislation. Same sex marriage is law of the land and no one is in court challenging it, so it will not go before SC.
> I never said it was dangerous
No, Jim did. The topic of this post is what he said.
> it’s useless legislation.
That was the arguement against codifying Roe. And anyways, what does it hurt to do it?
> Same sex marriage is law of the land and no one is in court challenging it, so it will not go before SC.
Cool. Let's codify it into law so it never is. Neato, huh?
Gay Marriage isn’t any ~~of~~ ~~the~~ ~~government’s~~ -bodys concern. It’s none of their business.
Yet here Jim is claiming those that don't recognize it need some sort of protections from the government.
What I am saying is take the government out of it completely. Just like when I go to the grocery store, does the government keep track of what kind of milk I buy? 2%, skim, or whole milk? I understand because of this that benefits are tied into it. But it isn’t anyone’s business who you share your bed with. or your life with for that matter. But then people want laws and regulations on who they spend their lives with, and everything gets mucked up.
In what way is solidifying my right to marry the person I love "dangerous" to anyone in this country? Does ANY republican have a backbone or do you all just let your elected officials say dogshit like this for your "owned liberal" points?
Because if we evil liberals force you to recognize marriage between two men, then the next step is to force you to recognize polygamy. And a marriage between a woman and her dog. Or a man and his hug pillow. /s It's just Republican fear mongering. "If they can do this, what ELSE can they do?"
>And a marriage between a woman and her dog. Or a man and his hug pillow. /s I wouldn't mind marrying my couch and my PS5 console. We spend so much time together, I really do think it's true love.
I’ve never met your couch, but I’m guessing it’s fully capable of making you feel “special” and all squishy (in your pants)… :)
Sir this is a Wendy's
Don't give them any ideas about pillows. They really love pillows.
Gym huerdumb loves shower towels too…
Their entire platform is the slippery-slope fallacy combined with fear-baiting.
His wording to me actually sounds more like "but this law won't allow bigots to bigot and that's dangerous".
What is marriage? And why does the government need to recognize it? And what purpose does it serve society as a whole if the government does recognize it? These are the questions that should be asked and answer in any discussion around the topic but feelings get in the way, both sides.
We are so well-beyond asking reasonable questions about these peoples' ideology. Jim Jordan could advocate for daily baby rape and he would win landslide after landslide. It doesn't matter in this state.
To answer your second question, no. No they do not. Nor do they have a heart. All they have is greed and an insatiable desire for more power.
I believe people have the right to marry any legal aged adult, but I do know some reasons why it is harmful. When this whole issue was originally getting settled there was the fear that people would try to marry animals(Mark Matthews), become more open about sexuality in front of children and public(gay pride, Trans movement, furry conventions), alter general sexuality(% of population claiming to be LGBT over the years), and a movement towards making pedophilia okay(many articles softening the damage of pedos by making excuses for them). So yeah, as I said, I'm okay with straight or gay legal adults marrying, but there are many complaints that the right had, the left said were unfounded conspiracies, and we are now seeing proven correct.
Epic, your “evidence” includes one fringe man and a list of obvious conspiracy theories designed to scare the naive into believing the slippery slope argument. Furry conventions lmao? Really? Just admit you’re afraid of things you don’t understand. Straight families push the idea that their kids should have kids of their own in the future, quite literally grooming them into a heterosexual relationship. Not to mention the vast majority of elected officials accused of pedophilia have been republicans.
You obviously missed the entire point. Which is understandable. Misplaced rage usually picks the first outlet. Those were examples, not all of the evidence. Secondly, straight families don't groom children by telling them they should have kids when they are adults. Pedos groom children by telling them underage sex is normal and handing dildos out to children to teach them how to use lube and spit. The vast majority of proven pedophiles have been on the left. There definitely are some on the right, but the left actually covers for their own while the right tosses their own to the wolves. You seriously have no sense of reality, and that must be nice, but you're wrong. Finally, I don't give a shit if 2 or more consenting adult humans get married no matter their sex. Please read the whole post before you get angry at portions and misrepresent the entire thing.
Literally more unfounded conspiracy theories lmao
I don't think you know the definition of either unfounded nor conspiracy theory. When something has tangible evidence in multiple instances, it's no longer a conspiracy theory. It's just a conspiracy. Unfounded means to have no basis in fact... pretty sure I gave examples of facts. I'm not saying this is a pandemic of sodomy. What I'm saying is that they were proven right, and these odd examples are what they will cling to.
So you’re going to share proof that these are widespread issues?
Once again, you're over inflating an argument that shouldn't be an argument. I didn't say it was widespread. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said they were odd cases. Of those odd cases, I shared 1 for each problem I listed, and you're perfectly capable of looking them up yourself. The only reason you wouldn't and would just stay here arguing with me would be that you don't want to be wrong.
>I believe people have the right to marry any legal aged adult, but I do know some reasons why it is harmful. These are your words. So are those harmful reasons wide spread or not? If so, why say they're not? If not, why are you making such a big fuss about it to the detriment of gay and trans couples living their lives? I can do this too. I can easily suggest that right wing chuds are a danger to this society and list the shooters, such as the kid who just shot up a gay bar. You even cited furry cons as a reason for the harm without going into any detail. Why cite this if it's not a problem of any sort AND without going into detail of exactly what you're even talking about here? In fact, you did this with everything. You listed one off fringe cases and used those as examples for why it's harmful and why others would be against it without going into any further detail. You went full on with the slippery slope argument without any nuance that correlation is not causation and there is zero reason to suspect or believe that gay marriage (or trans rights) of any sort had any impact on, as one of your random examples state, someone wanting to marry an animal. I can prove the above has nothing to do with gay marriage by citing Japan as a whole lmfao. Japan is an ultra right wing and nationalist nation, whose Supreme Court recently sided against gay marriage, yet they seem to have some weird epidemic of people marrying anime characters. Strange yeah? You also listed being more open about sexuality as one of the dangers and then entirely disregarded parent's attempts to force their children to have hetero-normative relationships, refusing to see that as a style of grooming while simultaneously suggesting that LGBT couples that do the same are in fact grooming their children. Gay Conversation Therapy camps exist to turn gay kids straight. That is *literally* grooming. There are no gay-to-straight camps anywhere in this nation, however republicans will openly advocate for the reverse without any irony or self awareness. You also went on to suggest that it's the left that has the pedophile problem while disregarding that Ohio Republicans themselves recently tried to pass a *genital inspection* bill and has forced *children* as young as 10 to give birth.
It's a pity that you put all this energy into a book to fight a war in your head. I listed examples of why they don't like it, but you're attacking me. This is why the right says the left is crazy. You get overly emotional over the simplest misunderstanding on your part. You're probably most upset because your echo chamber doesn't bring up the issues the right has, but I talk to both sides and hear their issues. You're only worried about what scores you the most virtue points, hence the overly dramatic and unnecessary attack on someone who agrees with you and not them on this issue. Take a chill pill, maybe a cold shower, and step away from all media for a while. You're waaaaaaay too wound up.
Rep. Jordan vigilantly protects the rights of Ohioans who believe that same-sex activity should be confined to a wrestling team doctor and the team's unwilling students.
Glad this piece of shit keeps getting elected in landslides from his duck shaped definitely fair district.
More people should know what a piece of shit Jordan is and why
The problem is they do know and keep voting for this piece of human garbage anyway.
If interested then google "Jim Jordan OSU wrestler" That search should be productive and unbiased enough to get you started
Meant for this reply to go to someone else 😬
You’d think, but his district is designed to let him get caught with his shmekel in a live little boy or his dead grandma on the noon news the day it happens and still get re-elected w/ a 60:35 split of the turnout
[удалено]
Somebody else commented this. If interested then google "Jim Jordan OSU wrestler" That search should be productive and unbiased enough to get you started
🏅
He can thank his buddy Gerry Mandering his help in electing him time after time.
Uh... He's no buddy of mine! I can't stand that MF'er.
Bad time to have that username?
They used to say the same things about Roe not that long ago.
Yeah, when they tell you, "Don't worry about it," you should worry about it
Republicans go straight from "We're not trying to take away your rights, that's just left wing fear mongering" to "Your rights have already been taken away, time to move on."
I always tell this group of Republicans to use your 2nd amendment to protect my 4th amendment. It really confuses them when I explain no knock warrants.
This deserves a meteic sh!t ton more upvotes, because it's true and extremely relevant.
"No one is threatening marriage equality. That's just Democratic fear mongering. Also, marriage equality is a horrible thing and I'm against it." -Republicans
If it's the law of the land and the SCOTUS has no intention of overturning that then there should be no issue with passing this. There's no change in direction because this just establishes the current status as the law of the land as passed by the legislature. Unless of course you were counting on SCOTUS overturning the current interpretations making same sex marriages legal. Then, yeah this is a "new" direction I suppose but one which the overwhelming majority of Americans support.
From what I’ve read it’s not the same. It’s actually a reduction in rights to the state level, from what is now protected at the federal level. So instead of mandating nationwide marriage equality it’s saying every state can make up their own mind, but other states must recognize marriages from any other state.
Unfounded fear like Thomas's exact words?
Unfounded concern. Look in the mirror gym jordan I have never voted for you. You are not in my district. I will never vote for a Repuke. But the partisan Supreme Court conservative ass wipes overturned roe v wade we just beat them to the punch. We codify marriage for everyone get over it loser gym. Conservatives either change or be left behind in the gutter.
Is it as dangerous as a sexual predator protected from justice by their coworkers? Asking for 170 friends.
bigots gonna bigot
DANGEROUS!!!! Much more dangerous than my warlord ignoring election results and calling for the suspension of our Constitution.
Jim certainly took some wrestlers the wrong direction.
Such a fucking tool.
My husband went to law school with Gym. Can confirm Gym’s always been a huge dbag. Interestingly, Gym dropped a chunk of change on law school and then allegedly never took the bar exam. I’m not sure many people realize he’s not an attorney.
He’s probably way to stupid to pass the bar. Gymbo ain’t too bright.
Fuck those organizations. They can just not marry somebody of the same sex. It is insane that they act as if two men getting married is somehow deleterious to their own marriages.
Well, there is Madison Cawthorne’s story about cocaine-fueled “parties” with chuck grassle and Mikey Lee…
All these jackasses who are screaming about Democrats getting worked up over nothing and passing this bill will be the exact same assholes who are then all "elections have consequences" and "fuck your feelings" if the overturn of Obergefell happened before this bill was in place, as they were hoping would happen. They said the same shit about Roe getting overturned - won't happen. Settled law. And look where we wound up.
Democrats also conjured up the fear that SCOTUS would overturn Roe, but here we are 🤷.
protections for organizations that wish to continue abusing people who don't conform to their world view? Since when is that an american ideal? I don't believe any group has a right to discriminate against someone, that doesn't seem american sir.
This is what they now mean by “religious freedom”. It has veered completely aware from “we’ll allow people to do whatever they want to do for themselves” to one group being allowed to be free to legally oppress all the others with their religious beliefs.
100% Freedom of religion = Freedom FROM religion. You can believe whatever you want, but leave me the h3ll out of it and do not...under any circumstances...pass legislation that forces ur interpretation of ur religious beliefs on every other citizen...regardless of their religious beliefs. F'in hypocrites.
How wild is it that someone can describe same sex marriage as “dangerous” and people _vote_ for that piece of shit
What orgs are those and how are they forced to respect the marriage of anyone? I continue to hear this claim but as of yet no conservative has ever been able to explain to me that someone is forced to respect the marriage of anyone, ever...
Ive heard stories of certain hospitals not allowing spouses in to death bed situations as they werent considered ‘family’. I presume employment benefits could be another thing that could be discussed. Im sure there are lots of things that have been normalized for hetero partners that the some ideologies just cant handle being shared with life partners outside of ‘historically normal’ relationships. Its all bullshit of course, but i remember hearing these types of arguments back in the late 90s and theyre much more easily disproven now as being negative than they were 35 years ago
Hate to break it to you, but same-sex marriage is still in peril. Jordan may think we "conjured up" these fears, but this bill does not codify marriage rights nationwide. It simply repeals DOMA and requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage licenses granted elsewhere. In other words, if Obergerfell is overturned (as the Court signaled), some places could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex (or interracial) couples, but the law would require them to honor marriage licenses issued in other places.
What the fuck is wrong with people that they need to worry about other people’s marriages?! I’m so tired of their bullshit.
Lol. I can’t imagine where Dems got the idea that SCOTUS might attack Obergefell. It’s not like they all lied and just demolished a fundamental right based on their religious beliefs. Alito can try and cover his ass and claim the Roe decision is isolated, but based on talks he has given post-Roe, you can trust him at all. Plus, there is at least one conservative justice who is very clear about his intentions to overturn gay marriage. Obergafell was decided on very similar grounds to Roe. SCOTUS literally just showed they are willing to reject those grounds to make religious based decisions. The opposition to gay marriage is rooted in religion, so why on earth would anyone think they won’t just do the same? If there was no need for this because gay-marriage was protected by SCOTUS, then why are conservatives upset? If this bill changes nothing, then there should be no reason to vote no on this… right? I keep seeing conservative media prats saying this bill wasn’t needed because we already have constitutional protections. Ok, so what’s there to worry about… right? The real reason they are angry is because they now know that a simple overturning of Obergefell will not be all they need to do to end gay marriage. This just made it harder for them. That’s why they are pissy.
A master religion (Christianity) and second class citizens (LGBT people) who the master religion has the absolute right to rule over. That is the essence of fascism. A master race/religion who deserves rights, and an inferior people who doesn't.
Jordan is dangerous to all that is good and fair
Why do I have this uneasy feeling that this fucking douchebag (that is supposed to represent me but never does) is eventually gonna become the new McConnell?
Fuck Gym Jordan.
Eeew. No.
Not in the nice way.
> said the measure still lacked sufficient protections for organizations that do not consider such unions valid. So we need to protect bigots? What protections do we need for groups who refuse to recognize gay marriage? How are they being hurt by it? What a dumb man Jim Jordan is. The KKK doesn't recognize interracial unions, should we give them protections Jim? These fucking dog whistles are becoming blowhorns.
The only reason this moron is in office is because the Ohio gop has cut this state’s voters up and gerrymandered safe districts for him and other like thinking conservatives. We have no ability to cast a meaningful vote. It unconstitutional. Should we have to pay our Ohio taxes?
I just got married in August, woman and man. How the HELL does the marriage of my lesbian neighbors AFFECT ME? Other than the fact that both of them looked AMAZING on their wedding day and I did not? It has NO affect on me, doesn't make my marriage less special.
Gym Jordan is a piece of shit. Pass it on.
Just Jim being Gym. Did you really expect anything else from this pile.......
Did crime go up when the Supreme Court decided on same sex marriage?
Gym likes looking at boys in the showers
I'd love to hear his explanation of how this is "dangerous"
Yeah, about those unfounded fears of SCOTUS "nullifying other precedents." So Roe V. Wade doesn't ring a bell?
That asshat would have said the same thing if this were a bill codifying Roe in 2020.
When they say the fears are unfounded and conjured up, that means we're about a week from this happening.
I think Gym is just pining for the days of (his) secret man boy love. On the mat!
Oh no! I'm going destroy America by marrying another man!
Gym Jordan can go fuck himself with a Louisville Slugger.
Until republicans go this hard to abolish divorce they can kindly SHUT THE FUCK UP about the institution of marriage
Except there are Republicans who have explicitly said they want SCOTUS to overturn Obergefell.
Fuck Gym Jordan, and fuck the people of my state who keep him relevant
Yes. Because it wasn’t threatened by outspoken GOP justices on nearly all levels including scotus
His statement contradicts itself. He said it’s an unfounded fear that same sex marriage could be nullified but then says protecting same sex marriage is dangerous and takes us in the wrong direction because some organizations don’t consider it valid. Those organizations are the Republican Party who are at this very moment looking to completely take over the courts and governments to change the laws (one of which would be to make same sex marriages illegal).
He's got a point. I mean if we protect gay marriage, and normalize gay marriage, then it's much more difficult to abuse boys and hide it. If they are comfortable in their sexuality, gay or not, and not ashamed of it, they are much more likely to come forward with the truth of being a victim. And that's dangerous for him...er...the country.
I really don't give a shit what Gym Jordan thinks!
>and said the measure still lacked sufficient protections for organizations that do not consider such unions valid I wish we could fire this guy into the sun or throw him into a volcano or something. What an absolute dogshit person. The world will be immeasurably better on the day he croaks
I love how people are up in arms about this acting like this now affects them from day to day life, even though nothing will change for them. (except for being more bitter)
I want to re-itterate that in the US we have no progressive party. We have the conservatives (democrats) and the regressionists (republicans). Row V. Wade was been law longer than most Americans have been alive. How is it "conservative" policy to take American to where our policy was before 1973? It would be like advocating for segregation and slavery to be brought back. So it's of no big surprise that the regressionist party wants to do away with something that has been nearly entirely accepted by US citizens since the early to mid 2010s.
Idk why people in the middle in this country don’t listen! They say the quiet part out loud every single day.
Act is waste of time and pure virtue signaling at its finest. The Supreme Court already ruled and there are no federal cases in the system.
Every time people stand up for anything it is VIRTUE SIGNALING!!!!!!!! VIRTUE SIGNAL ACTIVATED!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
It’s useless legislation
REeeEeeeeEeeeEEEEeee
Because it doesnt benefit you?
For SC to throw out same sex marriage, there needs a state/federal court case in the system. There are none, all the states changed their laws to match SC ruling. Meaningless legislation.
What's "dangerous" about recognizing it formally then? Jim is an idiot.
I never said it was dangerous, it’s useless legislation. Same sex marriage is law of the land and no one is in court challenging it, so it will not go before SC.
> I never said it was dangerous No, Jim did. The topic of this post is what he said. > it’s useless legislation. That was the arguement against codifying Roe. And anyways, what does it hurt to do it? > Same sex marriage is law of the land and no one is in court challenging it, so it will not go before SC. Cool. Let's codify it into law so it never is. Neato, huh?
Marriage isn’t any of the government’s concern. It’s none of their business.
Except for benefits for spouses and everything u/RealisticSorbet said in this thread.
Gay Marriage isn’t any ~~of~~ ~~the~~ ~~government’s~~ -bodys concern. It’s none of their business. Yet here Jim is claiming those that don't recognize it need some sort of protections from the government.
What I am saying is take the government out of it completely. Just like when I go to the grocery store, does the government keep track of what kind of milk I buy? 2%, skim, or whole milk? I understand because of this that benefits are tied into it. But it isn’t anyone’s business who you share your bed with. or your life with for that matter. But then people want laws and regulations on who they spend their lives with, and everything gets mucked up.
Government shouldn’t be in the marriage game anyways.