The House plans to vote Tuesday on legislation to codify same-sex marriage nationwide and strengthen other marriage equality protections, in direct response to a recent Supreme Court decision that overturned longstanding federal abortion rights.
The Respect for Marriage Act establishes that a marriage is considered valid under federal law if it was legal in the state in which it was entered into. The bill would specifically prohibit anyone from denying “full faith and credit” to an out-of-state marriage based on sex, race, ethnicity or national origin, regardless of state laws. It would give the U.S. attorney general the power to enforce that rule through civil suits.
It would also completely repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, the 1996 law signed by then-President Bill Clinton that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
The Supreme Court gutted DOMA in its 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor. Two years later, the court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage rights. Despite being toothless, DOMA technically remains law, and now the House aims to wipe it off the books entirely.
A vote on the Respect for Marriage Act is expected to take place this afternoon, according to the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. The Democratic-led House is expected to pass the bill.
But it’s unclear whether it will pass the Senate, where the parties are split 50-50 and 60 votes are needed for most legislation to pass. Many conservatives in the House are likely to argue that states should determine their own same-sex marriage laws.
Lawmakers are also set to debate a bill on Tuesday that guarantees the right to contraception, another push for rights protections spurred by the court’s landmark ruling last month in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The decision overturned legal precedents that had protected abortion rights for nearly 50 years.
The conservative majority, which includes three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, argued in part in its decision that “the Constitution does not mention abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by a constitutional provision.”
This legal argument raised widespread concerns that the court could threaten other rights previously considered settled.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion reinforced those concerns. The judge argued that the ruling in Dobbs should prompt the court to revisit landmark cases establishing the rights to obtain contraception, engage in private sexual acts and marry a person of the same sex.
“As this court may target other fundamental rights, we cannot sit idly by while the hard-earned gains of the equality movement are systematically eroded,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, DN. Y., in a statement Monday detailing the Respect for Marriage Act he is sponsoring.
“If Justice Thomas’s concurrence teaches anything, it’s that we cannot let your vigilance down or the rights and freedoms we cherish will disappear in a cloud of radical ideology and dubious legal arguments,” Nadler said in a statement.
Other justices did not echo Thomas’ opinion. But it raised concerns that the court, which now has a 6-to-3 conservative majority, would be willing to take on cases challenging those rights in the future.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Dobbs, emphasized: “Nothing in this opinion should be read as casting doubt on non-abortion precedents.”
But critics, including the court’s three liberal justices, were unconvinced.
“We cannot see how anyone can be confident that today’s opinion will be the last of its kind,” the liberals wrote in a furious dissent in Dobbs.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Monday he believes bills protecting same-sex marriage and contraception can clear the Senate’s 60-vote hurdle, NBC News reported. Some Republican senators gave noncommittal answers when asked by NBC if they would vote for the legislation.
Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Sunday that the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding same-sex marriage was “plainly wrong.”
This is developing news. Please check back for updates.
Add Comment