Senate voted on Wednesday to advance the Respect for Marriage Act

  • Senate voted on Wednesday to advance the Respect for Marriage Act

    Posted by metta on November 17, 2022 at 2:58 am

    12 Republican Senators Just Voted to Advance Same-Sex Marriage Protections Act

    The Republicans who voted for the measure include Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, who said in a statement the legislation “provides important protections for religious liberty”

    Romney’s vote in favor of advancing the bill came hours after the Mormon church, of which he is a member, announced its support for RFMA.”

    One notable “No” vote came from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has stayed relatively quiet on the issue in recent weeks.”

    the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA), is worthy of not just support but celebration: It repeals a bigoted federal statute while creating a crucial backstop for marriage equality in the states if the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell v. Hodges. As recently as 2015, it would’ve been unthinkable that such a sweeping bill could pass into law.

    What the RFMA does not do is “codify” Obergefell, as many media outlets have inaccurately reported.”

    “The RFMA will benefit same-sex couples if, and only if, SCOTUS overrules the right to equal marriage.”

    ” The RFMA repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. It replaces DOMA with a requirement that the federal government recognize any marriage that was “valid in the place where entered into.” So if a same-sex couple obtains a valid marriage license from any state, the federal government must recognize their union.”

    The RFMA does not codify this component of <em style=”background-color: var(–bb-content-background-color); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>Obergefell. Instead, it directs every state to <em style=”background-color: var(–bb-content-background-color); font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; color: var(–bb-body-text-color);”>recognize every same-sex marriage that “is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into.”

    So the RFMA does not force Texas to issue a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple. But it does force Texas to recognize a marriage certificate issued to a same-sex couple by New Mexico.”

    the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause gives Congress the power to make states grant “full faith and credit” to the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of other states.”

    First, the RFMA does not only protect marriages, but also any “right or claim arising from such a marriage.” The single most important right “arising from” marriage is the right of parentage over children produced within a marriage. Thus, the law requires states to honor same-sex couples’ parentage over their own children, whether their kids are adopted or conceived with the help of a donor. This provision is incredibly important at a time when some Republicans are trying to deny same-sex couples the myriad rights of parentage.”

    Second, the Senate amended the RFMA to include protections for religious liberty. None of these additions would have any meaningful effect. One clarifies that “nonprofit religious organizations” are not compelled, under federal law, to provide goods, services, or facilities “for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.” This provision merely reflects the status quo. It does not preempt state civil rights laws that might bar a commercial nonprofit (think the Salvation Army) from discriminating against gay people. Nor does it implicate the ongoing debate about ordinary businesses’ right to discriminate against LGBTQ customers under the First Amendment. (The Supreme Court may soon give businesses and nonprofits a right to discriminate, rendering this provision irrelevant, anyway.)”

    Third, the Senate version of the bill does not require the federal government to recognize marriages between more than two people (that is, polygamy). It does not bar states from legalizing polygamy under their own laws. Given that no states appear eager to experiment with polygamy, this section is purely symbolic.”

    Finally, the bill applies equally to same-sex marriages and interracial marriages. Since no states have expressed interest in reviving anti-miscegenation laws, this component is also largely symbolic. But it does protect interracial couples if the Supreme Court were to overturn Loving v. Virginia, which was rooted in the same constitutional principles as Obergefell.”

    • This discussion was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by  metta.
    metta replied 1 year, 3 months ago 1 Member · 1 Reply
  • 1 Reply

Log in to reply.