Lawmakers opened a robust and potentially fractious debate on the contentious issues in a partly political strategy that called for an election-year roll call that would force all members of the House, Republican and Democrat, to stick to their views. It also reflects the legislative branch fighting back against an aggressive court that appears intent on re-examining seemingly well-established US laws. “The far-right majority on the Supreme Court has set our country on a dangerous path,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., in a speech setting Tuesday’s proceedings in motion. “It’s time for our colleagues across the aisle to stand up and be counted. Will they vote to protect these fundamental freedoms? Or will they vote to let the states take away those freedoms?” While the Respect for Marriage Act is expected to pass the House, with a Democratic majority, it is almost certain to stall in the evenly divided Senate, where most Republicans will likely join a philosophy to block it. It is one of several bills, including those enshrining access to abortion, that Democrats are proposing to counter the court’s conservative majority. Another bill, guaranteeing access to contraceptive services, will come up for a vote later this week. The poll shows a majority of Americans favor maintaining the right to marry regardless of a person’s sex, gender, race or ethnicity, a long-standing shift in modern mores toward inclusion. A Gallup poll in June showed broad and growing support for same-sex marriage, with 70% of US adults saying they believe such unions should be recognized by law as valid. The poll showed majority support from both Democrats (83%) and Republicans (55%). Approval of interracial marriage in the US hit a six-decade high of 94% in September, according to Gallup. Republicans insisted during Tuesday morning’s procedural debate that the court focused only on abortion access in June when it overturned the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade decision, and argued that same-sex marriage and other rights are not under threat. Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa., who led the early debate for his party, did not fully address same-sex marriage but focused on the court’s language to suggest access to contraception and other rights are not at stake. For congressional Republicans, the confirmation of conservative justices to the Trump-era Supreme Court fulfilled a long-term GOP goal of revisiting many social, environmental and regulatory issues that the party has been unable to address alone by passing bills that could be signed into law. law. Legislation headed for a vote on Tuesday, the Respect for Marriage Act, would ensure that marriages in the US are treated equally. It would repeal a Clinton-era law that defines marriage as a heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman. It would also provide legal protections for interracial marriages by prohibiting any state from denying marriage licenses and out-of-state benefits based on sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, had been effectively sidelined by Obama-era court decisions, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the rights of same-sex couples to marry nationwide, a landmark case for gay rights. But last month, in striking down Roe v. Wade’s constitutional right to abortion, the conservative court left critics worried that more could follow. Writing for the majority that overturned Roe, Justice Samuel Alito argued for a narrower interpretation of the rights guaranteed to Americans, saying that the right to abortion is not defined in the Constitution. “Therefore, we hold that the Constitution provides no right to abortion,” Alito wrote. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas went further, saying other decisions similar to Roe, including those involving same-sex marriage and couples’ right to use contraception, should be reconsidered. While Alito insisted on the majority view that “this decision is about the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” others have taken it on board. Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage and now a Democratic candidate for the Ohio House, said after the court’s abortion decision: “When we lose a right that we’ve relied on and enjoyed, other rights are in danger.”
