51 comments

  1. Interracial marriage was always approved at least starting from the 1970s for the most part is not a thing of you having to be murdered if you were married from 1980 into today. so I don’t understand why would they have this in the bill. But every generation things change can’t wait to see how it’s all going to fan out 2024.

    1. The one Black Judge named Clarence Thomas, married to a white woman named Jenni Thomas. Was the one wanting to reverse laws. To date to our founding courtry. Just like he did with abortion. Second, he would reverse gay marriage, and contraception. But conveniently he lives out interracial marriage. That’s when he distorts laws to only work for him.

    2. Actually it goes back to at least the Persian Empire, and likely before, considering the entire span of human history.

    3. @Erick Borling Did you read my comment. Judge Thomas wants to reverse American laws to the foundation of this country. Did you know their were anti interracial laws. If Judge Thomas wants to remove other’s freedoms. Perhaps he needs to realize what he needs to give up too. There’s no double standard.

    4. There’s *case law* and there’s *statute law* . Interracial marriage is legal because of the landmark case _Loving v. Virginia_ . Only the Supreme Court can overturn a prior decision. If there’s a future court challenge, a conservative Supreme Court can overturn the ruling resulting in interracial marriage being defined in the state governments which means an interracial couple can be legally married in one state, but unmarried in another state. This bill codifies interracial marriage as *statute law* in case a future conservative Supreme Court overturns the case law.

    1. @Michael Bindner The United States has nine community property states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. Three other states have adopted optional community property systems.

    2. @Michael Bindner Yeah woman’s got a ride to take one man’s stuff get her another man and get his stuff The man gets screwed out of the deal

  2. The new & lame CNN: “Well, bipartisan victories are pretty rare these days”. Of the 642 bills this Congress has passed SO FAR, 603 (about 94%) received bipartisan support!

  3. Imagine if you flipped this and instead it applied to mixed race couples. Would anybody stand for it? If some states banned mixed race marriage but they have to recognize a marriage performed in another state, this would not be okay but for some reason it’s okay with them to treat lgbtq couples like this.

    1. Maybe I’m reading your comment wrong, but I’m pretty sure this bill applies to interracial marriages too. Respect for Marriage requires states to recognize the same-sex and interracial marriages performed in other states, but states can still refuse to permit same sex/ interracial marriages from being performed within their own state borders.

    2. It does apply to interracial marriage and many would stand up for it because these unions can procreate

  4. No No No NO NO! Perry v. Schwarzenegger was decided 8-1 (with the one being Scalia – who is dead) that states cannot deny marriage rights. This right is very secure. This act was necessary because changing federal law using the Courts is considered dicey. This bill essentially repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, not trusting the Court to respect prior precedent.

    Please issue a correction.

    1. i agree with this but i do not want to wake up with some strange man’s tongue in my a55hole. in otherwords, let them marry each other but i do not want a man to be allowed to marry ME without my consent!

    2. That’s not correct. The case filed in the Federal District Court against California Proposition 8 was _Perry v. Schwarzenegger_ . Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Then Governor Schwarzenegger chose not to appeal the decision. However, the proponents of California Proposition 8 intervened and appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. The three-judge panel questioned whether the proponents of Proposition 8 had legal standing to intervene and appeal on behalf of the State of California and sent the case to the California Supreme Court to rule whether the proponents had legal standing. The California Supreme Court ruled that the proponents had legal standing to intervene and sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit where the three-judge panel ruled 2-1 upholding the Federal District Court’s decision.

      The proponents of California Proposition 8 then appealed to the United States Supreme Court for judicial review and the case was renamed to _Hollingsworth v. Perry_ to answer the question whether the proponents of California Proposition 8 had legal standing to intervene and appeal the decision and not on the merit of same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 26, 2013 that the proponents of California Proposition 8 did not have legal standing to intervene as they could not demonstrate that they were harmed by the decision. The case was returned to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to vacate its former ruling. The Court’s action left the original Federal District Court ruling (overturning California Proposition 8 as unconstitutional) as the final ruling in the case. This allowed same-sex marriages to resume only in the State of California.

    3. @RaymondHng but became precident because it affirmed right to marriage as found by District. Oberfeld was about inheritance taxes.

  5. Our pronoun’s have no identifiable sex; pronoun to pronoun marriage need to become law. My preferred pronoun “I don’t want” and my partner’s “To be married” want to be legally hitched up.

    1. Brinton’s taxpayer funded salary of $178,063, placing him amongst the top one percent of other federal salaries but yet feels the need to steal, mental illness?

  6. INTELLIGENCE:

    China is increasing nuclear stockpile for one reason:

    Usa doesn’t defend countries from neighbors with big nuclear arsenals…;)

  7. God holds the powerful God God hosts a powerful card not you not no feds you have brought down the wrath of God upon his Nation

  8. .John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. The Rapture is imminent!

  9. The nation that don’t want God God said he will destroy when you don’t want God’s law God will destroy he will make us a bear and waste again as it was before the day of creation jackals and Ravens will live in your big nice fine houses the blood will run as high as bright as a horse

  10. “Watching soccer is like watching John Fetterman try to complete a sentence. Very anticlimactic, nothing ever happens.”

    Jimmy Failla

  11. HERE A BUT: Does the respect for marriage act. Protect marriages that have been married for years in a state that bans same sex marriage or interracial marriage?

  12. The Palestinian cause is everyone’s cause, and we do not forget the Sahrawi cause, a greeting to the Sahrawi people, headed by the leader Mohamed Ibrahim Ghali and the Sahrawi Western Arab Republic

  13. Well I don’t live my life judging people but I guess same-sex marriage is some of this world is not really ready for or they don’t want to be ready for it🤔

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.