world

Pressure on Senate GOP after same-sex marriage passes House

17 Comments
By LISA MASCARO

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


17 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The US cannot be left in the hands of the rusty medievals and must stop its march back against human rights..

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Still, some vocal leaders in the Republican Party, including Cruz and Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, both potential presidential candidates, have indicated likely opposition to the legislation.

what a surprise that two open theocrats want to leave the door open for their hopelessly gerrymandered states to remove established rights.

The No. 2 Republican, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, was doubtful Tuesday, calling the proposed legislation little more than a political message

well gee whiz, Sen Thune, if that’s all it is what’s the harm in voting for it?

yeah, that’s uh, “not” all it is.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why is Chuck wasting his time on this? Me thinks it is, as usual, another useless political gesture to drum up support in the mid term elections.

I am waiting for him to actually propose some useful and timely legislation. How about a bill enshrining abortion rights in federal law? I think more people would be interested. Actually, the Democrats have had nearly 50 years to pass some kind of national abortion statute, yet they have never even tried. Wonder why...

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

i get it Attila, you would prefer Schumer spend his time on something that you know well has zero chance of passing the Senate instead of focusing on something that does have a chance of passing, and if it doesn’t pass, tells midterm voters exactly what the GOP intends to do with rights that don’t enjoy the approval of the religious right.

maybe you can explain why voters knowing GOP intentions is a “waste of time?”

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The US cannot be left in the hands of the rusty medievals and must stop its march back against human rights..

According to the polls it seems people do want it. But as far as same sex marriage, the majority of Republicans would uphold it, even the liberal Liz Cheney supports it. Her own sister is gay.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I would rather he spend time fixing more important issues, like border security and inflation. But if he insists on playing Social Justice Warrior, he should do so on a more timely issue.

Why do you think an abortion bill would fail in the Senate? Genuinely curious. The majority of Americans support limited abortion rights- usually up to 15 weeks into the pregnancy. Small minorities at both ends of the spectrum want either a total ban on abortion or abortion on demand. Great chance for a win for Schumer. Or at least he can highlight the unreasonable GOP senators who are not doing what their voters want.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Why do you think an abortion bill would fail in the Senate? Genuinely curious. The majority of Americans support limited abortion rights-

the senate doesn’t represent the majority of Americans. That is why the Senators from Kentucky and West Virginia wield so much power

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Actually, the Democrats have had nearly 50 years to pass some kind of national abortion statute, yet they have never even tried. Wonder why...

Much like legislation not allowing a defeated president to declare himself king, it was superfluous to the point of derision. I mean SCOTUS had ruled and ruled again. And precedent used to be a thing. In the absence of a change in society, science or the facts, the ruling stood.

And then came Trump.

And it became necessary to say things like "Wash your hands after you wipe." "Or violence in support of an insurrection is bad." or "Women have a right to control their own body."

But never underestimate the ability to the GQP to come down on the wrong side of a 70/30 issue.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

But never underestimate the ability to the GQP to come down on the wrong side of a 70/30 issue.

Again, diatribe aside, the Dem had 50 years to pass a statute and they never did, blame them.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

When it is issues relating to male reproductive rights, let's see just how "unimportant" they are. Perhaps then we will want to focus on "more important" issues?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

When it is issues relating to male reproductive rights, let's see just how "unimportant" they are. Perhaps then we will want to focus on "more important" issues?

Yeah, don’t see that happening any time soon….

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When it is issues relating to male reproductive rights, let's see just how "unimportant" they are. Perhaps then we will want to focus on "more important" issues?

Bass replies…

Yeah, don’t see that happening any time soon….

do you begin to comprehend what you just said, Bass?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

 Dem had 50 years to pass a statute and they never did

The fact that such legislation even became necessary as a result of 3 male geriatrics, a pervy drunk and a religious zealot (two of whom have never heard a case at the circuit level - all of whom lied under oath with regard to precedent) is lost on this one.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

do you begin to comprehend what you just said, Bass?

Yes, sir.

The fact that such legislation even became necessary as a result of 3 male geriatrics,

That’s bad?

a pervy drunk

Not on the job! But that’s with most people any ways.

and a religious zealot

But being an Atheist is ok?

all of whom lied under oath with regard to precedent) is lost on this one.

So did the others, and your point? Look, these people were always clear in their position on abortion, if Dems thought they weren’t then the jokes on them, that’s why they were chosen as constitutionalists.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Nemo, it would not have been necessary IF the Democrats in the Congress had used any foresight or brainpower to codify the decision. They did not do so. Why? Because they were unwilling to expend the necessary political capital. They were also not willing to actually state their position on the issue. Rather, they cloaked their ideas with horrid nonsense phrases like "right to choose" and "reproductive freedom" and "health care".

Well, time for the rubber to hit the road. The states will decide. A few zealots on both sides will be noisy but in the end the majority will prevail.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Thank god that Clarence married a woman outside his own race or Loving vs. Virginia might be on the block as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NemoToday  12:40 pm JST

Thank god that Clarence married a woman outside his own race or Loving vs. Virginia might be on the block as well.

Clarence better hope he’s not being someone’s useful idiot on all this “Constitutionalism” garbage.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites