Respect for Marriage Act advances after amendments made to protect religious liberty
The Senate advanced a bill that would protect same-sex and interracial marriage on Wednesday, Nov. 16.
The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) would require the federal government to recognize a marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed. The bill also guarantees that valid marriage between two individuals is “given full faith and credit, regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.”
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, however, has been urging senators to vote “no” on the Respect for Marriage Act bill, according to the letter written in July from Salvatore J. Cordileone, Archbishop of San Francisco and Chairman of the Bishop’s Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth.
“It is deeply concerning that the U.S. Senate has voted to proceed toward potential passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would essentially codify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell that found a constitutional right to same-sex civil marriages,” said Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty, in response to the bill’s advancement. “The Catholic Church will always uphold the unique meaning of marriage as a lifelong, exclusive union of one man and one woman. In doing so, we are joined by millions of what the Obergefell Court called ‘reasonable and sincere’ Americans – both religious and secular – who share this time-honored understanding of the truth and beauty of marriage.”
In his letter to the senators, Archbishop Cordileone agreed that “people who experience same-sex attraction should be treated with the same respect and compassion as anyone, on account of their human dignity, and never be subject to unjust discrimination.
“It was never discrimination, however, to simply maintain that an inherent aspect of the definition of marriage itself is the complementarity between the two sexes,” he continued. “Marriage as a lifelong, exclusive union of one man and one woman, and open to new life, is not just a religious ideal – it is, on the whole, what is best for society in a concrete sense, especially for children.”
The bill passed the House in July. It was amended on Monday, Nov. 14, after concerns were raised that the legislation would endanger religious freedom. The amendment protects all religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution or federal law, including but not limited to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and prevents this bill from being used to diminish or repeal any such protection. It confirms that nonprofit religious organizations will not be required to provide any services, facilities, or goods for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
After opponents voiced concern that the act could allow for polygamous unions, the amendment also clarified that the bill does not require or authorize the federal government to recognize polygamous marriages.
In his letter, Archbishop Cordileone said the health and socioeconomic benefits for children raised in stable families with a mother and a father are well-established.
“This corresponds with Pope Francis’s recognizing children’s right to a mother and a father,” Archbishop Cordileone said.
The bill, if it becomes law, would not force states that currently ban same-sex marriages to perform those unions. States would, however, have to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states, according to a press release from the bill’s sponsor, Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
After the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, the Respect for Marriage Act was introduced in July. The bill’s creation came after its sponsors were concerned that other laws protecting people’s rights could be in jeopardy, according to a statement from sponsor Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
“In overturning Roe v. Wade, the conservative Supreme Court majority indicated it is willing to attack other constitutional rights, including same-sex and interracial marriage,” Feinstein said. “In fact, one justice specifically noted that the court’s Obergefell decision confirming same-sex marriage should be revisited. Our bill would repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act and ensure that marriage equality remains the law of the land.”
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was intended to define and protect the institution of marriage for unions between a man and a woman. If the Respect for Marriage Act bill became law, it would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act, and it would protect three landmark Supreme Court rulings — Loving v. Virginia (1967), Windsor v. United States (2013), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) — all of which protected equal marriage, proponents said.
“Marriage equality is a constitutional right that has been well established by the Supreme Court as precedent, and this freedom should be protected,” Baldwin said.
After opponents voiced concern that the act could allow for polygamous unions, the amendment also clarified that the bill does not require or authorize the federal government to recognize polygamous marriages.
In his letter, the archbishop said the health and socioeconomic benefits for children raised in stable families with a mother and a father are well-established. “This corresponds with Pope Francis’s recognizing children’s right to a mother and a father,” Archbishop Cordileone said.
The bill still needs a final Senate vote, and due to the amendments made on Monday, it will have to go back to the House for a vote.
