WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of senators announced late Monday they had hammered out a proposal that would guarantee federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages while protecting religious liberties.
The revised “Respect for Marriage Act” would require the federal government to recognize all marriages — regardless of a couple’s race or gender — that were conducted legally under state law.
The bill does not authorize federal recognition of polygamous marriage and affirms that nonprofit religious organizations are not required to provide any ceremonial marriage services.
Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) collaborated on the bill, which proponents believe will pass the Senate when it comes up for a vote on Wednesday.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had agreed in September to postpone the vote until after the Nov. 8 midterm elections.
The revised “Respect for Marriage Act” would require the federal government to recognize all marriages that were conducted legally under state law. AFP via Getty Images“Through bipartisan collaboration, we’ve crafted commonsense language to confirm that this legislation fully respects and protects Americans’ religious liberties and diverse beliefs, while leaving intact the core mission of the legislation to protect marriage equality,” the group said in a statement late Monday.
“The Respect for Marriage Act is a needed step to provide millions of loving couples in same-sex and interracial marriages the certainty that they will continue to enjoy the freedoms, rights, and responsibilities afforded to all other marriages,” the senators said in a statement.
While the bill would require the federal government to recognize legal marriages, it does not require states to issue marriage licenses that are contrary to their state laws.
That means that should the Supreme Court overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, which affirmed the right to same-sex marriage, or Loving v. Virginia, which made interracial marriage a constitutional right, states would not be required to marry same-sex or interracial couples.
However, states would still be required to recognize any marriage legally granted by another state, according to the bill.
Some Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, have called the legislation superfluous because the Supreme Court decisions in Obergefell and Loving already made the right to same-sex and interracial marriage the law of the land.
Rubio went so far as to tell a CNN reporter that the House passing its version of the Respect for Marriage Act on July 19 was a “stupid waste of time.”
However, the Supreme Court’s June decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade and the federal right to abortion led some legislators to believe codifying the right to same-sex and interracial marriage was necessary in case challenges to Obergefell or Loving come before the court.
That urge was strengthened by Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in Dobbs that suggested the Supreme Court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedent, including … Obergefell.”
The revised bill will not require states to issue marriage licenses that are contrary to their state laws. Getty Images“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ … we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” he wrote.
Substantive due process is a legal principle that allows courts to establish certain fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution without congressional approval.
Democrats had promised to also codify the right to abortion if Americans voted to preserve their majorities in the House and Senate.
However, President Biden said Monday he didn’t “think there’s enough votes to codify” the right to abortion following the midterm election results, “unless something happens unusual in the House.”
