The Respect for Marriage Act, explained
If same-sex marriage is already legal, why does it need protection?
The Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that aims to reinforce same-sex marriage rights, secured official Senate passage at the end of November after avoiding a possible filibuster in the middle of the month. The final vote was bipartisan, or as bipartisan as it gets in these polarized times: 12 Republicans joined 49 Democrats in supporting the measure. (One Democrat and two Republicans did not vote.)
The bill will now move back to the House of Representatives so lawmakers can approve a Senate-added religious freedom amendment before sending the legislation to President Biden's desk. House passage is expected; the bill initially cleared the lower chamber in July, that time with 47 Republicans on board. The widespread support is a striking departure from the 1990s, when Congress passed a law opposing gay marriages, or even the early years of this century, when Republicans used alarm over same-sex marriage to turn out their supporters during the 2004 presidential election. Now? Those once-feared marriages have widespread national support. So why is Congress passing a law to protect them? Here's everything you need to know:
Isn't same-sex marriage already legal?
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires states to recognize — and license — same-sex marriages. That happened in 2015, relatively recently in court time, but a lot has changed since then. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the moderate Republican justice who authored that ruling, retired in 2018. The court now has a 6-3 conservative supermajority that in June 2022 overturned the right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
And that's relevant to this story: In a concurring opinion in Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court should also reconsider other precedents, including the marriage ruling. Even some progressives agreed that the logic of the abortion ruling "would absolutely threaten the constitutional legitimacy of all constitutional privacy rights," one law professor told The Guardian. So Democrats in Congress began working on a bill that would guarantee federal recognition of same-sex marriage, whether or not the Supreme Court ever chooses to reverse it.
What does the new bill entail?
The Respect for Marriage Act does not codify Obergefell, Mark Joseph Stern writes at Slate. Instead, it repeals the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and instead requires the feds to recognize marriages that were valid when and where they were conducted. "So if a same-sex couple obtains a valid marriage license from any state, the federal government must recognize their union," Stern writes. The bill also requires states to recognize marriages validly conducted in other states: If Obergefell falls, Texas wouldn't be required to issue marriage licenses, but it couldn't refuse to recognize marriages performed over the state line, either.
One thing the bill does not do, however, is require the government to recognize marriages between more than two people."There is not a single state that allows for polygamous marriages," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in September.
What about religious liberty?
The only way to get Republican support for the bill was to include language protecting religious organizations. Per The New York Times, the act guarantees that religious entities "would not be required to provide any goods or services for the celebration of any marriage," and that nothing in the law would affect or remove the tax exemptions that churches and religious nonprofit agencies receive.
Because of those provisions, the Mormon Church — which does not approve of same-sex marriages — endorsed the bill. While church doctrines limiting marriages to the man-and-woman variety will remain unchanged, the church said in a statement that the Respect for Marriage Act "includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters."
What is the opposition saying?
The religious liberty carve-out didn't satisfy all religious groups. The Missouri Baptist Convention — an affiliate of the Southern Baptist Church — and Catholic leaders oppose the bill, The Associated Press reports. "The bill will be a new arrow in the quiver of those who wish to deny religious organizations' liberty to freely exercise their religious duties, strip them of their tax exemptions, or exclude them from full participation in the public arena," said Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York.
In a mid-November test vote, 37 Republican senators voted against letting the bill proceed (a similar number voted against its final passage). Some, like Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), said the act is unnecessary because same-sex marriage "is already a Constitutional right." His fellow Texas Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz, went further, asserting the law would let the Biden administration "target universities, K-12 schools, social service organizations, churches and strip them all of their tax-exempt status."
What's next?
The bill now heads to the House, where lawmakers will vote on the Senate-approved version. Pending passage, it will then move to Biden, who has said he will sign it into law.
Update Nov. 30: This article has been updated throughout to reflect Senate passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a freelance writer who has spent nine years as a syndicated columnist, co-writing the RedBlueAmerica column as the liberal half of a point-counterpoint duo. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic, The Kansas City Star and Heatmap News. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
Shopping trolleys: the new must-have accessory
Speed Read Sales are soaring as new designs help shed that old-fashioned image
By Adrienne Wyper, The Week UK Published
-
5 ways to help the environment while on vacation
The Week Recommends An afternoon of planting trees could be the best part of your trip
By Catherine Garcia, The Week US Published
-
Doctors are taking on dental duties in low-income areas
Under the radar Physicians are biting into the dentistry industry
By Devika Rao, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
'Haley's decision to stay in this race could make sense'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published