Comment on this story
comment
The Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would enshrine the right to same-sex and interracial marriage in federal law, is just four short pages. Yet in the week since the House passed the measure on a bipartisan vote and Democratic leaders indicated they planned to move it to the Senate, few Republican senators have found the time to read it, or so they said Tuesday.
“I haven’t read it,” said Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.).
“We’re still looking at it,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
“I’m not going to comment on it in terms of how I’m going to vote until I see the bill, if it’s voted on,” said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.).
The reality is that senators have little trouble understanding what the bill does: It repeals the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 and requires states to extend “full faith and credit” to any marriage between two people, regardless of the “sex, race, ethnicity, etc. or the national origin of such persons,” which reflects the action the Supreme Court took in 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage at the national level.
The tricky part is the politics: Despite the fact that 7 in 10 Americans now approve of same-sex marriage, the issue remains difficult for Republicans. They still regard the religious right as a key part of their electoral coalition, and are wary of being swayed by Democrats to highlight what some of them believe is a purely speculative threat to same-sex marriage rights at the national level. national when Republicans would rather be talking. on rising inflation and a softer economy.
The House passed a bill on July 19 that would protect same-sex marriage at the federal level, but it is unclear whether the legislation can pass the Senate. (Video: Hadley Green/The Washington Post)
House approves protection for same-sex interracial marriage with bipartisan support
“Most of our members will say, why are we having this vote right now when no one is talking about it?” said Sen. John Thune (RS.D.), the No. 2 leader of the GOP in the Senate. “The Democrats seem to be using it as a distraction.”
But in the eyes of Democrats, writing same-sex marriage into federal law became much more than a political stunt with the Supreme Court’s decision last month striking down the constitutional right to abortion that had been kept since the Roe v. Wade decision 49 years ago. Like the rights to interracial and same-sex marriage, the federal right to abortion had been based on the constitutional theory of substantive due process that recognizes “unnumbered” rights such as the right to privacy.
While the court’s controlling opinion last month held that the abortion ruling should not “cast doubt on precedents not involving abortion,” a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas did precisely that: He asked the high court to “reconsider all of this.” The substantive precedents of the due process of the court”, included Obergefell i Griswold v. Connecticutthat protected access to contraception, and Lawrence v. Texaswhich invalidated state sodomy laws.
“We are in the post-Roe world, where marriage equality, contraceptive freedoms, everything is on the table as far as the Supreme Court is concerned,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “And this particular issue is on the hit list of the majority on the right. As inconceivable as overturning Roe it was only a year ago, this one must be considered in jeopardy.”
A handful of Senate Republicans have already indicated they support the effort, including Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Thom Tillis (NC). A fifth Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.), said last week he had “no reason to oppose” the measure, while accusing Democrats of “creating a state of fear on an issue to in order to further divide Americans for their political gain.”
That’s five more Republicans than supported Democrats’ efforts earlier this year to codify Roe before the judgment of the Supreme Court. But Democrats will need at least 10 to join them to save a filibuster.
Amid GOP support, Senate Democrats see hope for same-sex marriage vote
Dozens of Republicans are expected to oppose the measure if it comes up for a vote. Among those who said Tuesday they would have no qualms about voting “no” was Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who said in a statement that the bill was “an attempt by Democrats to score points politicians creating hysteria and panic, as well as escalating their ongoing attacks on the Court.”
But many simply do not take a stand. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is leading the waiting parade, telling reporters Tuesday that he would continue to keep his powder dry until Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (DN .Y.) schedule a vote. . Asked about his position on the bill, McConnell said, “I’m not going to make any comments on that until the issue actually comes up in the Senate.”
That stance has been comfortable for many Republicans this week: Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a member of McConnell’s leadership team, said she was “hearing from both sides on the issue” and stood by undecided “I’ll see if it comes out, and then I’ll make a decision,” said Sen. Richard Burr (RNC), while Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) declined to state his position. , noting, “I don’t know if we’re going to vote on this or not.”
Behind the scenes, these senators are being pressured by some of their colleagues, including Collins, Portman and Tillis, as well as the two Democratic senators who are openly members of the LGBTQ community, Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz. ).
“We’re just trying to get through it,” Tillis said. “At the end of the day, members have to make their own decisions, but in my view, it’s very different from the bill that Senator Schumer introduced to codify. Roe v. Wade. … This is a sincere codification of the current law”.
Republicans, meanwhile, are under pressure from elements of their political coalition who are asking them to stand firm against the bill. A letter sent to McConnell on Tuesday, signed by leaders of the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom and dozens of other social conservative organizations and institutions, said the measure would “endanger people of faith” and have the “mute” effect. those who hold the long-standing conviction that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to human development.”
“It has little to do with the protection of rights; its text betrays an intent to stigmatize and take away rights, especially those belonging to people of faith,” said the letter, which was first reported by Politico.
The religious right’s biggest ally in its quest to prevent the bill from moving forward could be a looming legislative impasse in the Senate, as well as a series of health-related absences that could prevent the Senate from mustering the necessary 60 votes to defeat a filibuster. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) is recovering from hip replacement surgery, while Murkowski and Sen. Joe Manchin III (DW.Va.) have tested positive for the coronavirus in recent days.
“We’re working very hard to get 10 Republican senators,” Schumer told reporters Tuesday. “Between that and the diseases, we’re not there yet.” He did not list the same-sex marriage bill among his top priorities for action before the Senate begins its summer recess next week, instead listing bills to boost investment in research and development, lower prescription drug prices, and improve veterans’ health care.
Baldwin said Tuesday that the bill is “gaining more support every day” but that absentees are a concern.
“We will do it when we have the votes and the time,” he said, adding: “I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with a lot more. [than those who are] making a public commitment at this time.”
But Democrats’ insistence on waiting for enough GOP support to hold a vote amid Republicans’ reluctance to publicly embrace the legislation has created a Catch-22 for now. “My guess is it certainly doesn’t happen until they’re convinced they have 10 Republicans,” said Thune, who has opposed same-sex marriage in the past but has not spoken out on the Respect Act to marriage
“I think some of them expect it to go away,” Blumenthal said, recounting his own conversations with Republicans. “But when push comes to shove … I think if you put it on the floor today, it would happen. What I’m hearing is, ‘You know, our base is tough on this issue, but how can we challenge history?'”