WASHINGTON — Thursday, the House of Representatives granted final approval to a bill that upholds the legality of same-sex and interracial marriage, sending it to President Biden and putting an end to decades-long discussions on the subject.
The Act passed the House by a vote of 258-169, with 39 Republicans voting in favor, fewer than the July vote. In late November, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 61 to 36.
The Supreme Court allowed same-sex and interracial marriage nationwide in 2015 and 1967, respectively, and the law was developed out of concern that the court could reverse itself after it abolished federal abortion rights in June.
Since the Supreme Court’s terrible decision overturning Roe v. Wade, right-wing forces have set their sights on this fundamental personal freedom, said outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday.
The 82-year-old House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke in favor of the bill as one of her final acts before she stands down from her position as the Democratic Party’s leader in January.
AFP Images via Getty
“The Respect for Marriage Act will help prevent right-wing fanatics from disrupting the lives of loving couples, traumatizing children across the country, and turning back the clock on hard-won progress,” said Pelosi, adding, “it repeals for good the discriminatory, unconstitutional Defense of Marriage.”
In 1996, Biden and many other Democrats supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of homosexual and lesbian relationships and permitted states to refuse marriage licenses granted in other jurisdictions.
This legislation, which restricted gays and lesbians healthcare, tax, immigration, and inheritance rights, passed the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14 and the House by a vote of 342 to 67, with Pelosi voting against it before it was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
In 2012, as vice president, Biden abandoned his opposition to same-sex marriage as public support for the reform increased, one year after New York joined five other states and expanded marriage rights through legislation. President Barack Obama abandoned his objection to same-sex marriages shortly after Vice President Joe Biden did so.
Jim Obergefell, left, with his late husband John Arthur. The plaintiff in the 2015 Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide was Obergefell. After Arthur’s death from ALS in 2013, he sued to be included on his death certificate.
AP
In 2011, Gallup polls indicated majority support for same-sex marriages for the first time, and as of May, 71% of American citizens believe the government should recognize their validity.
The Senate passed the bill with the support of 12 Republicans, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who saved an ultimately successful push to lift the military’s prohibition on gay and lesbian members during the 2010 lame duck session of Congress.
Conservative opponents of the bill anticipated an avalanche of lawsuits against religious groups and individuals.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) anticipated that “countless lawsuits” would be brought in the near future “to test the new limits of this law.”
The bill’s supporters maintained that it would not enhance the liabilities of those who oppose such unions.
During the Senate debate, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) stated that the bill “protects everything from the tax status of religious nonprofits to the accreditation of religious schools to contracts between faith-based adoption providers and the government”
“It ensures that nonprofit religious organizations, including as churches, mosques, synagogues, and religious schools, cannot be compelled to provide facilities, commodities, or services for marriage ceremonies or celebrations against their will,” he added.
During debate on the measure, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer referenced his lesbian daughter Alison Schumer, who is in a same-sex marriage.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the June 24 judgment reversing Roe v. Wade. He accused dissenting justices of attempting to “stoke unwarranted anxiety that our decision may jeopardize” prior rulings that permitted the use of contraceptives and homosexual and interracial marriage.
The majority judgment stated, “To ensure that our decision is not misconstrued or misrepresented, we underscore that our conclusion pertains solely to the constitutional right to abortion. Nothing in this opinion should be interpreted as casting doubt on precedents unrelated to abortion.”
In a concurring opinion, however, Justice Clarence Thomas stated, “In future instances, we should revisit all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Thomas, who is currently in an interracial relationship, did not ask the court to revisit the Loving v. Virginia decision from 1967.
Some Republicans who support legal same-sex marriage rejected the proposal because they believed it was unnecessary.
During full House debate in July, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) tweeted, “In a fit of panic sparked by one language in a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas, Democrats have moved to submit a bill codifying Obergefell v. Hodges.” This holding is not threatened. This legislation’s violation of federalism offends me significantly more than gay marriage.”
»Biden bill to legalize homosexual and interracial marriage is sent to Congress«