Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) delayed a vote on the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” until after the midterm elections to give the gay marriage bill the highest probability of passing — with the help of squishy Republicans.
It is a tactical move that paid off on Wednesday when 12 Republicans joined with Democrats to advance an updated version of the legislation 62-37, which includes a religious liberty clause that faith advocates say is pretty much useless. Out of those 12 Republicans, several are retiring in the new year and likely have no motivation to hide their abandonment of conservative values, including Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC, who voted to impeach former President Trump), and Rob Portman (R-OH).
A few were/are also facing reelection and kept their position quiet. Mitch McConnell-backed Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who has not yet secured her reelection, voted to advance the bill, along with Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), who won his reelection campaign.
A few of the GOP “yea” votes also came from some of the lawmakers responsible for the reportedly toothless religious liberty clause entitled “No Impact on Religious Liberty and Conscience”— an effort which involved a bipartisan group of five senators, Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Susan Collins (R-ME), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Thom Tillis (R-NC).
One very notable “yea” vote was from failed presidential candidate Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT). He voted to advance the bill following a bill endorsement from the Mormon Church, despite previously stating that he believes marriage is between “one man and one woman.”
Americans of faith received little preemptive assistance from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who won reelection as Senate GOP leader on the same day as the vote. While McConnell voted against the legislation, he made no effort to stand against the bill before the vote, stating over the summer that he would not reveal his position until vote time.
The GOP also did not receive input from Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse (R) was not present and did not vote because his wife recently had a seizure and he stayed home with her, Politico reported.
The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was introduced following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, due to Democrats’ unfounded concerns that the Supreme Court could use the Dobbs decision to overrule the Court’s Obergefell gay marriage decision. The measure passed the House in July with the help of 47 Republicans. With the amendment agreed upon, the bill will go back to the House before going to President Joe Biden. The White House has expressed support for the measure.
RFMA would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and would require the federal government to recognize any marriage that was “valid in the place where entered into.” The bill would also require every state to recognize every same-sex marriage that “is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into.”
As a report from Slate noted, the bill “does not go as far as Obergefell. In that decision, the Supreme Court directed every state to license same-sex marriages—that is, to issue a marriage certificate to same-sex couples. The RFMA does not codify this component of Obergefell.” According to the report:
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. In a post-Obergefell world, a same-sex couple in Texas could drive to New Mexico, obtain a certificate, and force Texas to respect their marriage like any other.
The bill does have a “private right of action” clause, which would allow “any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (b)…[to] bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States against the person who violated such a subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.” The law would also allow an attorney general to bring civil action against any person who violates the law.
Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or
privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.
But religious liberty proponents say the amendment does nothing to shield Americans who have a traditional view of marriage from being targeted under the law. Heritage Action for America Executive Director Jessica Anderson released a statement saying RFMA is an “unnecessary piece of legislation that provides for lawsuits against those who simply hold a different view on marriage.” She continued:
It seeks to put the federal government in charge of marriage, wipes out the rights of individuals to act in accordance with their personal beliefs, and discriminates against religious people treating them as bigots under the law. To make matters worse, the Senate is only now considering the bill in a lame-duck period after the American people voted.
Supporters of the legislation have said the expected consideration of a Tillis-Collins-Baldwin amendment would address the religious liberty problems in the original bill — but it would not. It is a messaging exercise that has no teeth, and religious Americans would still be subject to discrimination and targeting under the bill. Any senator who’s serious about religious liberty would be insisting on the inclusion of the Senator Mike Lee’s amendment based on the First Amendment Defense Act, which would actually protect religious liberty. Rather than respecting individuals, this legislation would open them up to persecution, fines, and punishment.
The Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino wrote that the so-called religious liberty amendment would “provide nothing that is not already guaranteed.” He wrote:
And it doesn’t cover areas where forced participation in same-sex celebrations still occur, such as with private bakers, florists, photographers, and other wedding vendors. …The drafters of these amendments are conjuring the illusion of religious freedom while undercutting it at every turn.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the bill “opens the door to American persecution.” He wrote for the Washington Stand:
Not only is this language light years more radical than the justices’ ruling seven years ago — cracking down on parents, charities, adoption agencies, teachers, Christian schools, counselors, and Bible-believing professionals — the government would be declaring open season on anyone who believes in marriage as it’s always been: the union of a man and woman.
In a very telling move, lawmakers previously rejected a proposed amendment from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) which he said would have actually shielded people of faith from being coerced into supporting same-sex unions.
Lee even said he would have supported the bill if the sponsors had included his amendment, which would have prohibited the government from “removing tax-exempt status based on religious beliefs about same-sex marriage (for or against).”
“The sponsors adamantly refused even to consider that. Why?” Lee posed.
On Thursday, the House Freedom Caucus sent a letter urging the Senate Republican Conference to “oppose the radical and unnecessary H.R. 8404.”
“This vote is about more than culture. It is about affirming the self-evident truth that marriage is a natural institution that predates government,” the letter reads. “Republicans must stand united in defense of that truth and the institution of marriage which forms the backbone of a healthy society. There can be no compromise on this question.”
The House Freedom Caucus took an official position against the bill in July, stating that the bill was “rushed through the House as yet another weapon to distract, confuse, and deceive American citizens.”
“It allowed no hearings or markups, and less than a day to review. The radical Left has launched an all-out campaign on America’s traditional values and sacred institutions. It has weakened the nuclear family, attacked the norms of masculinity and femininity, and now it wants to further erode the sacred institution of marriage,” the caucus said at the time.
“This bill is both unnecessary and undermines the recognition of ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman. After overwhelmingly opposing the ‘Respect for Marriage Act,’ the House Freedom Caucus urges the Senate Republican Conference to oppose it as well,” they continued.
The advancement of the “Respect for Marriage Act” is yet another instance of Senate Republicans providing the votes needed to pass overreaching Democrat legislation, which includes broad-sweeping bills concerning gun control and infrastructure.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.