The Respect for Marriage Act would state that a marriage is considered valid under federal law if it was legal in the state where it was performed. The bill would expressly prohibit anyone from denying “full faith and allegiance” to an out-of-state marriage based on sex, race, nationality, or national origin, regardless of the laws of any individual state. It would give the U.S. attorney general the power to enforce that rule through civil action. It would also completely repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, the 1996 law signed by then-President Bill Clinton that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Supreme Court struck down DOMA through its 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor. Two years later, the court decided in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage rights. Although falsified, DOMA remains technically law, and the House now aims to remove it from the books entirely. A vote on the Respect for Marriage Act is expected this afternoon, according to the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. The Democratic-led House is expected to pass the bill. But it’s unclear whether it will pass the Senate, where the parties are split 50-50 and 60 votes are needed to pass most legislation. Many conservatives in parliament will likely argue that states should decide their own same-sex marriage laws. Lawmakers are also set to debate Tuesday a bill enshrining the right to contraception — another push to protect rights spurred by the court’s landmark ruling last month in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The decision overturned legal precedents that had protected abortion rights for nearly 50 years. The conservative majority, which includes three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, argued in part in its ruling that “the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.” This legal reasoning fueled widespread fears that the court could threaten other rights previously considered settled. A concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas reinforced those concerns. The justice argued that the decision in Dobbs should lead the court to revisit landmark cases establishing the rights to obtain contraception, engage in private sexual acts and marry a person of the same sex. “As this Court may target other fundamental rights, we cannot sit idly by as the gains of the Equality movement are systematically eroded,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, DN.Y ., in a statement on Monday. the Respect for Marriage Act, which he supported. “If Justice Thomas’s concurrence teaches us anything, it is that we cannot let our guard down or the rights and freedoms we have come to cherish will disappear in a cloud of radical ideology and dubious legal reasoning,” Nadler’s statement said. Other justices did not echo Thomas’ opinion. But it raised concerns that the court, which now has a conservative 6-to-3 majority, would be willing to take on cases challenging those rights in the future. Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote for the majority in Dobbs, emphasized, “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on non-abortion precedents.” But critics, including the court’s three liberal justices, were not convinced. “We cannot see how anyone can be sure that today’s opinion will be the last of its kind,” the liberals wrote in a heated dissent in Dobbs. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Monday he believes bills protecting same-sex marriage and contraception can clear the Senate’s 60-vote barrier, NBC News reported. Some Republican senators gave non-committal answers when asked by NBC if they would vote for the legislation. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, meanwhile, said Sunday that the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage was “clearly wrong.” This is developing news. Check back for updates.
