The U.S. Senate advanced the revised Respect for Marriage Act in its November 16 session.
The Respect for Marriage Act would codify into law federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages and require the recognition of valid marriages regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.”
Until now, those rights have been based upon Supreme Court rulings. This act would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which said that the federal government would not recognize any same-sex marriages performed by states.
The act passed the 60-vote threshold needed for advancement in a bipartisan vote of 62 to 37, with 12 members of the Republican Party voting in favor.
The procedural vote pushes the measure forward, allowing debate to begin and bringing it closer to final passage.
“Today, the Senate is taking a truly bold step forward in the march toward greater justice, greater equality, by advancing the Respect for Marriage Act,” said Chuck Schumer in a speech before the vote. “It’s a simple, narrowly tailored but exceedingly important piece of legislation that will do so much good for so many Americans. It will make our country a better, fairer place to live,” he continued.
Some in the Republican Party had expressed concern about the original bill’s form and how it might affect religious practice and conscience, according to CBS News.
Senate negotiators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Kyrsten Sinema (D- AZ), Susan Collins (R-ME), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) released a joint statement explaining that they created a “commonsense language that respects religious liberty and Americans’ diverse beliefs while upholding our view that marriage embodies the highest ideals of love, devotion, and family.”
The bill was amended to include protections for non-profit and religious organizations, stating that they would not be required to provide “services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage,” and that refusal to provide services will not result in any kind of civil claim.
Also included in the bill is the clarification that the federal government is not authorizing polyamorous marriages.
“We’ve shown here through this legislation that these rights can coexist, religious freedom, on the one hand, LGBTQ on the other hand,” said Portman, according to CBS News.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) called the bill “a stupid waste of time.” He was one of 37 Republican Senators who voted against the bill.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, issued an opinion in which it argued that the Respect for Marriage Act “does nothing to change the status of same-sex marriage or the benefits afforded to same-sex couples following Obergefell. It does much, however, to endanger religious freedom.”
The opinion asserts that the act threatens religious freedom and the institution of marriage by further embedding a “false definition” of marriage in the American legal fabric and by opening the door to federal recognition of polygamous relationships.
Chip Roy, U.S. representative for Texas’ 21st congressional district, issued a letter to Republican members of the Senate, urging them to vote against the passing of the bill. He stated that its passage would codify “false belief on marriage and villainize millions of Americans for their religious beliefs.”
He continued, “The law cannot be neutral on marriage. It can either affirm truth or portray distortions. The foundational truth will always remain, and no act of Congress can change that. Those who see and know the truth have a moral duty to stand firm in its defense and to defend the crucial institution of marriage.”
Because the language of the original bill was amended in the Senate, it must go back to the House for another vote if it passes in the Senate.
