The United States Senate voted 61 to 36 to pass the Respect for Marriage Acta bill that would enshrine protections for same-sex and interracial marriages in federal law.
Twelve Republicans joined 49 Democrats in attendance to back the landmark bill, which prohibits states from denying “out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. national”.
The bill also “repeals and replaces” any federal language that defines marriage as between persons of the opposite sex.
Tuesday’s bipartisan victory comes in the final weeks of the Democratic-controlled Congress. The bill now returns to the House of Representatives, which is expected to move to Republican leadership during the swearing-in of the 118th Congress on January 3.
In a speech minutes before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, applauded the bill’s bipartisan support, saying he planned to call his daughter and wife to celebrate.
“For millions of Americans, today is a very good day. An important day. A day that has been a long time coming,” Schumer said.
“The long but inexorable march towards greater equality is moving forward. By passing this bill, the Senate sends a message that every American needs to hear: no matter who you are or who you love, you too deserve dignity and equal treatment under the law. »
But in the hours leading up to Tuesday’s vote, Senate Republicans like Oklahoma’s James Lankford raised concerns that the Respect for Marriage Act would undermine religious freedom in the United States and proposed amendments. additional to the bill.
“Is it today about respecting the rights of all, or is it about silencing some and respecting others? Lankford said.
A Gallup poll showed support for same-sex marriage in the United States hit an all-time high of 70% in 2021. It was also the first time that Gallup recorded a majority of Republicans in favor of same-sex marriage, at a rate of 55%. percent.
“Current federal law does not reflect the will or beliefs of the American people in this regard,” Ohio Republican Rob Portman said in a November 16 speech supporting the honoring marriage law. “Current law allows states and governments to deny valid same-sex marriages.
Since 2015, the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v Hodges has guaranteed the right of same-sex couples to marry. But laws like the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 — which defined marriage as between “one man and one woman” and denied federal recognition to same-sex couples — remained in place, though unenforceable.
Although the Respect for Marriage Act does not codify the Obergefell decision, it would repeal laws like the Defense for Marriage Act. It would also require states to recognize all legal marriages where performed and protect current same-sex unions.
The current push to pass the Respect for Marriage Act came in the wake of the June Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationthat overthrew half a century of abortion access protections.
During a Senate session on Monday, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden pointed to the Dobbs decision as motivation to vote in favor of the bill.
“Some members of this body have questioned why we have to pass this bill when marriage equality is the law of the land,” Wyden said. “The answer is quite simple. The Dobbs decision, which upset Roe against Wade, showed that the Senate cannot take any modern legal precedent for granted.
The majority opinion in the Dobbs decision, written by Judge Samuel Alito, denied that the decision would affect court precedents outside of abortion.
But a concurring opinion, submitted by Judge Clarence Thomas, suggested that the court should “re-examine all substantive due process precedents of this Court”, mentioning the 2015 Obergefell decision among them.
On July 19, just weeks after the Dobbs decision, House Democrats passed the Respect for Marriage Act with the support of 47 Republicans — a surprise bipartisan vote that signaled an apparent split in Republicans’ stance toward the homosexual marriage.
Top House Republicans, including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Whip Steve Scalise, opposed the bill, while third Republican Elise Stefanik of New York voted in favour.
After passing the House, the Respect for Marriage Act ran into greater difficulty in an evenly divided Senate, where 60 votes were needed to overcome a filibuster.
Senate Democrats delayed voting on the bill until after the United States had held its midterm elections in an effort to relieve pressure on Republicans and gain greater bipartisan support. Republicans lobbied for multiple amendments to the bill on the grounds of protecting religious freedom.
The bill passed Tuesday included language that explicitly prohibited polygamous marriages and ensured the bill could not be used to target or deny government benefits, including tax-exempt status, based on religious beliefs. . In a test vote Monday, 12 Republicans joined Senate Democrats in voting in favor of the amended bill.
Religious groups have also offered their support for the bill, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), which applauded the bill for its “protections of religious freedom while upholding the law.” and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.”
“It’s remarkable that the Senate has this debate to begin with,” Schumer said Monday. “Ten years ago, it would have stretched all our imaginations to imagine both sides talking about protecting the rights of same-sex married couples.”
But Tuesday’s vote was preceded by new proposed amendments to the bill, from senators including Lankford and Florida’s Marco Rubio.
Portman, another Republican, on Tuesday urged his party to support the Respect for Marriage Act. He called “false” fears that the bill would make “institutions and individuals trying to live by their sincere beliefs” vulnerable to litigation.
The bill, Portman said, “reflects a national policy that respects diverse beliefs about the role of sex and marriage, while protecting the rights of same-sex married couples.”
Another Republican, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, told the Senate that while she believed “God’s word on the definition of marriage,” she would support the Honor Marriage Act.
“These are turbulent times for our nation,” Lummis said, citing an increase in impassioned rhetoric. “We are doing well in taking this step, not by embracing or validating each other’s devout views, but by simply tolerating them.”