WASHINGTON – House on Tuesday passed a bill that would recognize same-sex marriage at the federal level as 47 Republicans joined Democrats in support of a move that responds to growing concern that a Conservative Supreme Court it could nullify marital equality.
The Marriage Respect Act would codify federal protections for same-sex couples that were established in 2015, when the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges established same-sex marriage as a right under the 14th Amendment. The legislation would repeal the Marriage Defense Act of 1996, which defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman, a law that was overturned by Obergefell but has remained in the books.
The legislation, which was passed by a vote of 267 to 157, faces an uncertain future in the Senate, divided equally, where most Republicans have opposed gay rights measures. But Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican and minority leader, declined a position on the measure on Tuesday.
Democratic House leaders chose to move forward with the bill after a Supreme Court opinion last month overturning abortion rights suggested judges could review cases alleging same-sex marriage. same-sex and contraceptive rights. The debate in Congress introduced the issue to the midterm election campaign, where Democrats are eager to distinguish between their party’s support for LGBTQ rights and the opposition of many Republicans.
In the Senate, Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and majority leader, did not pledge to raise the measure, but said he will “look at everything we can do to address these issues” following Dobbs’ decision.
“Let’s be honest: this is a MAGA Supreme Court, a far-right MAGA Supreme Court, far, far away not only from where the average American is, but even the average Republican,” he said. Sr. Schumer.
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the court’s decision in the Dobbs Women’s Health Organization case against Jackson, said the sentence should not be read as matters other than abortion. But in a concurring opinion, Judge Clarence Thomas made it clear that he thought other historical cases based on the 14th Amendment should be reconsidered, as did the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade precedent. And Judge Alito has previously suggested that Obergefell should be reviewed, arguing that he invented an unfounded right in the text of the Constitution.
The legislation would require the federal government to recognize a marriage if it was valid in the state where it was held, which would address the mosaic of different state laws. This would protect same-sex marriages in the approximately 30 states that currently prohibit them, should the court overturn Obergefell.
The bill would also provide additional legal protections for same-sex couples, such as giving the attorney general the authority to carry out enforcement actions and ensure that all states recognize public acts, records, and court proceedings for marriages. out of state.
“Today, we are taking an important step to protect the many families and children who depend on the rights and privileges backed by the constitutional guarantee of marital equality,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee. a statement. “The Marriage Respect Act will add even more stability and security for these children and families.”
The White House issued a statement Tuesday in support of the bill, a version of which is co-sponsored by Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
The House vote reflected a shift among Republicans over same-sex marriage, as public opinion polls have shown that the majority of the party supports it. Although the vast majority of Republicans in the House opposed the bill, GOP leaders did not officially order its members to vote no, according to two people familiar with the internal discussions, making the vote more of a question of personal conscience.
The small bloc of Republicans who supported the measure accounted for less than a quarter of the party’s conference, but that was a much larger proportion than what gay rights legislation extracted in the past. of Republican legislators. Only three Republicans voted last year in favor of broad legislation that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity.
Tim Lindberg, an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota Morris, said there has been a shift in the perception of LGBTQ rights across the country and, in particular, same-sex marriage.
“There’s no risk in supporting it, but there’s a political responsibility if you go too far to the right,” Mr. Lindberg on same-sex marriage rights. “It’s no longer a measuring stick if you’re conservative.”
Last fall, Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, a staunch Conservative, abandoned her long-standing opposition to same-sex marriage and said, “I was wrong.” On Tuesday, Ms. Cheney, whose sister Mary Cheney is gay and married with children, voted in favor of codifying protections against same-sex marriage.
New York Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, another Republican who supported the bill, said in a statement that she still feels remorse for opposing same-sex marriage more than a decade ago as a state lawmaker. .
“In 2017, I expressed my deep regret at having voted against a bill that legalized same-sex marriage in New York State while I was in the State Assembly six years earlier,” he said. say Mrs. Malliotakis. “All legislators have votes that they regret, and to date, that vote has been one of the hardest I’ve had to do.”
Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina who has previously supported same-sex marriage, said she supported the measure because it was “constitutionally sound.”
“If this gives a little peace of mind to ensure that the institution of marriage is protected, this is what I will vote for,” Ms. Mace.
But most Republicans opposed it. Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said the move was an offer by Democrats to delegitimize the Supreme Court.
“We are debating this bill today because it is an election year,” Jordan said. “We are here for political messages.”
Mr. Nadler claimed the legislation was a necessary response to Dobbs. Even if lawmakers accepted Judge Alito’s assertion that the decision had no implications for other rights, he said the legislation was a way for Congress to “provide additional security that marital equality is a matter of law. established “.