The United States House of Representatives has also voted to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, a law that would protect same-sex and interracial marriages.
The original bill passed the House in July, surprisingly on a two-way vote that brought 47 Republicans together with a majority of Democrats for a 267 to 157 vote.
Thursday’s polls also saw bipartisan support. The Respect for Marriage Act passed 258 to 169, with 39 Republicans joining the Democratic coalition.
The bill now goes to Democratic President Joe Biden, who is expected to sign it into law. The vote comes as Democrats are expected to lose their majority in the House, following the November midterm elections.
The Respect for Marriage Act is a very important law that would prevent countries from denying “marriages outside the state because of sex, race, ethnicity or nationality”. It also “repeals and replaces” existing federal laws that define same-sex marriage.
Such laws are unenforceable in the past, following Supreme Court decisions such as 2015 Obergefell v Hodges, which upheld the right of same-sex couples to marry.
But House Democrats advanced the Respect for Marriage Act last summer after the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The ruling overturned nearly 100 years of court restrictions on federal abortion rights in the US, giving states the power to regulate access to reproductive rights.
The opinion in the case, written by independent Justice Clarence Thomas, said the Supreme Court should “reexamine all the decisions this Court has had to make”, citing the Obergefell decision among them.
New York Representative Hakeem Jeffries, who is set to take over the top Democratic House post in January, took aim at Justice Thomas and the conservative-leaning Supreme Court in remarks before Thursday’s vote.
Quoting the Declaration of Independence – “We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” – Jeffries said that this idea has not been applied to everyone equally throughout history.
“Obviously, it didn’t work for the LGBTQ community. But through the process of changing the law, recognition, court decisions and laws, the word has been revived as we move toward a better union,” said Jeffries.
“That is the work that is being done today with the Respect for Marriage Act, especially because of the many radical, right-wing, irresponsible and oppressive people who are threatening the freedom and unity of marriage.”
Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, meanwhile, dismissed concerns from Democrats that landmark Supreme Court decisions like Obergefell and Loving v Virginia — which upheld interracial marriage in 1967 — could be overturned.
“Democrats have created a threat that never existed, based on one line of Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Dobbs. And they don’t understand or deliberately distort what Justice Thomas wrote,” he told the House.
House Republicans also took the podium to denounce the Respect for Marriage Act as an attack on religious freedom. Virginia Representative Bob Good said he rose to “vehemently oppose” the bill, calling it disrespectful.
“The reality is that traditional biblical marriage is the foundation of a strong society and a strong culture. I will say it again: Almost everything that disturbs our country is the failure to follow God’s plan for marriage, morals and family,” said Good.
He warned that the law “will ensure that the laws of marriage in the most liberal countries, regardless of how strict they will be in the future – I think polygamy, sex with animals, child marriage or whatever – must be legally accepted in all countries”.
The Law respecting Marriage expressly forbids polygamy. It also includes several Republican amendments to recognize and protect religious freedom, including language to ensure that its content is not used to target or deny government benefits, such as tax exemptions, based on religious beliefs.
After adding safeguards to ensure that religious organizations could not be prosecuted under its language, the Respect for Marriage Act passed the US Senate with bipartisan support in November, by a vote of 61 to 36.
Several prominent denominations have also expressed their support for the bill, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as the Mormon church.
In November, it released a statement that said the church “grates for the continued efforts of those who are working to ensure that the Law on the Dignity of Marriage includes appropriate religious protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters”.
New York Democrat Jerry Nadler, who sponsored the Respect for Marriage Act, emphasized this point on Thursday, telling the House that, “contrary to the fear expressed about religious freedom, almost every church group in the United States has accepted this law”.
The Respect for Marriage Act has a limited role. It is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision. If the Supreme Court were to reverse its rulings allowing same-sex and interracial marriages, the law would not prevent states from banning such marriages.
But the act would repeal laws such as 1996’s Defense of Marriage Act, which limits the definition of marriage as “between a man and a woman” for purposes of state recognition and benefits. It also prohibits states from denying the validity of marriages performed in other states on the basis of race, sex, and ethnicity.
In a speech before Thursday’s vote, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced the Respect for Marriage Act as a bulwark against “right-wing extremists”.
“Ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, right-wing forces have focused on this fundamental right,” Pelosi said, citing her work on behalf of marriage.
“Today, we will enshrine marriage equality into federal law now and for generations to come.”
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a Colorado website developer’s lawsuit seeking immunity from the state’s anti-discrimination lawsuits, saying he could have been forced to offer same-sex marriages, a violation of his religious rights. .
