Senate May Take Up Federal Same-Sex Marriage Bill This Month
A compromise to protect religious freedom may bring on more Republican support.
A bill to formally recognize same-sex marriage at the federal level may make it to the Senate floor within weeks as lawmakers work on compromises that could get enough Republican support to avoid a possible filibuster.
The Washington Post reports that proponents of the Respect for Marriage Act believe they can get 10 votes among Republican senators if the bill is amended to provide some protections for religious freedoms. "But those Republicans won't announce support for the legislation until the vote, so they can be shielded from attacks that could pressure them to vote otherwise," the Post adds.
Thanks to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), recognition of same-sex marriage is the law of the land in all 50 states. But the recent Dobbs ruling striking down Roe v. Wade has many people worried whether the Obergefell is in danger. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in Dobbs arguing that the logic of Dobbs should encourage the court to reconsider Obergefell.
Because national same-sex marriage recognition was the result of a Supreme Court decision, many states still have laws banning it on the books, even if they aren't actually in effect at the moment. Should Obergefell be overturned (or another decision, United States v. Windsor, which ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional), we could end back up in a messy space where some states have laws that forbid legal recognition of same-sex marriages that took place in other states where they're legal.
The Respect for Marriage Act would formally repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and specify that the federal government will recognize same-sex marriages from any state where they're legal. While it wouldn't force states to legalize same-sex marriage recognition within their own borders, it would require states to recognize marriages from states that do legally allow them (something states already typically do for heterosexual marriages despite the laws regarding those marriages being different from state to state).
The Respect for Marriage Act passed the House and managed to pull in 47 Republican votes. The Senate, though, is harder, and as The Washington Post notes, some Republicans aren't revealing how they'll vote. It currently has two Republican sponsors in the Senate—Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rob Portman of Ohio.
The Post doesn't detail what sort of compromises are under consideration, but we do know that a number of Republicans who support LGBT rights also support compromises that do not force private small businesses, churches, or religious organizations to provide goods or services to same-sex couples if they object to same-sex marriages. The Fairness for All Act, for example, is a compromise bill pushed forward by some Republicans that would add gay and trans people as categories to federal anti-discrimination laws but would provide some religious exemptions.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a compromise marriage recognition bill detailing that no church or religious leader can be forced to host or provide a gay wedding and that small businesses with religious owners (like a bakery, florist, or photographer) can't be forced to provide goods or services to LGBT people.
This would be a good compromise. There is no dearth of people in the wedding industry willing to take money from gay couples to give them the celebration of their dreams. This is not a massive civil rights crisis that requires government intervention. The Supreme Court later this year will be hearing a case about whether Colorado can force a web designer to host images of same-sex weddings against her own religious objections. She will probably win.
Passing the Respect for Marriage Act may feel unnecessary, but it's actually good to have a law on the books rather than expecting the Supreme Court to hold fast on a precedent. This is what Congress is for. The Dobbs decision has shown us that what a handful of judges decide can be overturned by another handful of judges. Laws, written by a body voted into office, are a much more consistent and stable way to maintain a practice the public already widely supports.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
LOL
Imagine telling working-class 1980s Democrats that in a few decades their party would use full control of Washington DC to promote stuff like this instead of, say, raising the minimum wage. 🙂
#OBLsFirstLaw
Didn’t read the article. Did Shackford present the libertarian position that the government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage in the first place?
Did Shackford present the libertarian position
Is that something like doggy style or more like the lucky pierre?
You seem very familiar with the concepts…
What does this mean though? Should marriage contracts be illegal? Unenforceable?
The Dobbs decision has shown us that what a handful of judges decide can be overturned by another handful of judges. Laws, written by a body voted into office, are a much more consistent and stable way to maintain a practice the public already widely supports.
Uh, a handful of judges is why gay marriage isn’t illegal in California.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
Does Scott think laws can’t be overturned by both legislators and judges?
Biden claiming that we had to defend democracy because the Republicans might overturn gay marriage was one of the most hilarious things I’ve ever seen a president say.
“Democracy” was keeping gay marriage illegal in lots and lots of places — including California. It was only the courts correctly claiming that the government has no power to outlaw gay marriage that ‘saved’ Biden and the rest of the democrats — they took credit for the ruling but were against gay marriage all the way up until it was handed down.
Trump was the first president to ever run and win supporting gay marriage.
Pets? Can people marry their pets (Animals)? Asking for an acquaintance. And pets of the opposite sex, as my acquaintance is not gay.
https://pleated-jeans.com/2010/07/06/how-to-marry-your-pet/
These reasons include:
– The tax benefits
– Your foreign dog or cat is seeking citizenship
– Wedding presents
– You’re tired of having your pet sleep in the extra bedroom every time your parents visit
Classic English joke:
Two English gentlemen are sitting in an English gentlemen’s club reading their Daily Telegraphs. After a while, one of them puts down his paper and says to the other, “I say, did you hear about Carruthers?” “No”, responds the other gent.
“Well, he’s gone off to Africa and is living in sin with a gorilla.”
“Good God…male or female gorilla?”
“Female of course. Nothing wrong with Carruthers”.
Racist.
we could end back up in a messy space where some states have laws that forbid legal recognition of same-sex marriages that took place in other states where they’re legal.
Those fucking messy spaces where people get to make their own choices for themselves!
I like how a Federal same-sex marriage law, but no Equal Rights Amendment, no abortion bill, the fucked up hit-or-miss of 1A and S230, the multitudinous ends around the 2A, no federal marijuana legalization (what else am I missing?) is Scott’s idea of a ‘clean’ legal space. What a fucking retard.
One size fits all is the libertarian ideal.
Make their own choices? Like who they fucking marry?
Shut up you idiot. We shouldn’t even have to legislate rights ffs.
Outside of parenthood, no government should be recognizing peoples fuck buddies and other personal relationships.
Is this claim supposed to be obvious? Why should the government care whether you have children?
We are, of course, pretending that you didn’t discover this newfound skepticism of government marriage at the exact instant that gay people started wanting in on the action.
Make their own choices? Like who they fucking marry?
No, like whose weddings or other contracts they recognize as they see fit.
Shut up you idiot.
Or else what? You’ll call your Papa Joe to come help you?
We shouldn’t even have to legislate rights ffs.
The fact that you think rights are legislated speaks volumes.
And what shall we say to the people who want to have marriages of more than 2? What limiting principle stops marriage at 2? AND DON’T SAY “TRADITION” YOU FASCIST RACIST BIGOT! LOVE IS LOVE YOU PIECE OF EXCREMENT!
It’s true.
Because certain legal rights and privileges extended to a spouse can’t be practicably extended to more than one person.
I bet you’re fun at parties.
Such as? Are these problems unsolvable with contracts?
Contracts can only involve 2 people. Duh.
A marriage contract between a man and multiple women is still one contract between two people. It’s just the man has more than one contract between himself and a woman. The contracts of marriage aren’t between the women unless they are also vowing to support the offspring of the man and woman.
I heard the same thing about extending them to same-sex partners.
What’s love got to do with it?
If protecting religious freedom is considered a compromise, then perhaps the whole concept is fatally flawed to begin with.
The
Respect for MarriageDon’t Say Fuck Kids In The Ass Act.Go ahead, Scott. Tell me I’m being disingenuous.
you’re being a ripe asshole, which is a thing in some straight circles. Besides, Scott doesn’t have butt sex, top sex, oral sex, heck not even self-sex. Looking at his dated photo, he likely hasn’t seen his member in ages, not that any of the gays who have blocked him on Grindr have noticed
“a compromise marriage recognition bill detailing that no church or religious leader can be forced to host or provide a gay wedding”
You mean that they want to force churches to do gay marriages, and only the need to “compromise” with Republicans prevents this?
We need to stop letting “religion” be a free pass to discriminate and be bigots. If you run a business then you need to follow the same laws as everyone else.
A Church is not a business, at least not in the legal sense.
It is disappointing to see people fall back on that argument: that I oppose such and such because of my sincerely held religious belief. I get why it is done especially when it comes to legal matters.
But still, it would be better to make the argument from logic and reason. Because that is what it is actually based on.
Curiously, James Madison and that crowd thought logic and reason were against religious persecution.
And non profits?
“We need to stop letting “religion” be a free pass to discriminate and be bigots.”
What about bold new religions like the Alphabet Sex Cult? I thought you were big on letting them abuse anyone who disagrees with them.
While the concepts of gender and sexuality spectra are certainly to some degree ideological, they aren’t definitionally religions, which require some nod to a deity or deities and the practice of worship.
And good news, you feeling like a shamed outsider as a result of your retrograde social ideology is not actually abuse, except self-abuse. It’s all happening inside your head. Stop blaming other people for how you choose to feel.
Still weird that “people should be able to marry whoever they love” doesn’t extend to polygamists.
Wait for the articles denouncing anti-polygamist attitudes as Islamopphobic.
Isn’t gay marriage itself kind of islamophobic? Try ordering a gay wedding cake from a halal bakery.
can’t be forced to provide goods or services to LGBT people.
I have never heard of a business refusing to serve gays. There are many that refuse to make various products or services for the purposes of gay weddings. The difference between these two things is enormous. Consider: State sponsored schools don’t refuse to teach Christian children. They refuse to teach children Christianity.
Yes, but Scott’s narrative…
…is dishonest bullshit.
i never understood why a business would turn down an opportunity to make money in earning new business. If a Christian bakery were to promote their services to a population consisting of screaming queens and hairy chested lesbians using LGBT themed marketing material, that bakery would stand to make more money. Its not like the Christians down the road give said bakery a large chunk of business, so let her rip
Its almost as if religious people devote themselves to something other than money…
actions speak loudest. Apparently their friends and neighbors are not impressed hence the dwindling numbers of religious folk.
Christianity is more than a soundbite. Sorry to burst your ideological bubble, Judas
If actions speak loudest, it’s curious you’re unable to hear what these people are saying.
Recall that heterosexual people outnumber homosexual people by several hundred million in the U.S. so advertising to a niche population is likely to net you maybe a few more bucks at best and only for the low, low cost of selling out your faith.
Or, shorter version, how to tell people you don’t give a fuck about anything but money without straight up spelling it out.
hence the dwindling numbers of religious folk.
The Alphabet Sex Cult and Church of Anthropogenic Climate Apocalypse say otherwise. Hell, the entirety of Woke is just a knockoff of Christianity.
You have got to get on a healthier media diet. You’re reduced to guttural noises that occasionally resemble a buzzword.
end marriage. easier.
Killing the patient would mean his cancer would not longer be a problem.
I thought the patient was dead until the zombie corpse developed cancer and started suing photographers and cake decorators.
It wouldn’t be easier necessarily. Marriage is basically a contract template. If large numbers of people were still interested in legally recognized coupling, doing away with marriage means simply pretending that we don’t have a form contract on file and drawing up a new one each time. The standard package would inevitably evolve again for practical reasons.
But I personally think marriage is silly, and any of its real benefits could be put in a form contract you could cosign with your romantic partner, good friend, or sister for that matter. Clarify who can pull the plug on your life support, and leave the state out of the question of where you put your dick.
False.
Please refer to the decades of gay folk trying –and failing– to secure the rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage via contract. And that’s before you even talk about the price difference for the limited rights/responsibilities/protections we were able to secure. Hundreds and thousands in lawyer costs vs. $25 for a marriage license.
Do gay men, as they’re violently penetrating their “husbands,” resulting in an explosive full body orgasm culminating in the ejaculation of gallons of HIV infected semen into their colons, realize how disgusting their lifestyle is?
The brain dampens disgust reactions during sex, undoubtedly a byproduct of making sex organs and excretory organs the same thing or very close together. If you were to design an animal from the ground up, you’d probably do things differently.
It takes a real simpleton, however, to think “I don’t like anchovies on pizza, therefore anchovies on pizza are morally wrong for everyone.” A real fucking smooth-brain.
You have enjoyed those “explosive full body orgasms”, haven’t you.
SCOTUS isn’t going to touch gay marriage because, while they recognize that Obergefell was wrongly decided, they have said they are not going to reverse a decision that large numbers of people have started relying on.
However, if they wanted to overturn it, a law wouldn’t stop them, because they would simply decide (correctly) that marriage isn’t a federal issue.
Even before Obergefell, it was a federal issue in the sense that a Nevada divorce was binding on the other states by virtue of the Supreme Court’s view of the Full Faith and Credit clause. That came to an end when every state decided to be as lax as Nevada in granting divorces.
Oh, well, in that case, why don’t you advocate (as Thomas does) for the overturning of Lawrence and move to Texas?
Or do you not trust that voted-into-office body?
That said, if that “compromise” were actually good, then ADF and other anti-gay activist groups wouldn’t object to the same “compromise” being expanded to non-discrimination laws covering religion, no?
Every religion must have its sacraments.
Even if it means smiting practitioners with blight and disease.
^
How about a law rescinding all federal taxes?
Abolishing all state marriage is the only fair thing. It just gets too complicated when you get people who want to marry a stuffed animal, or an actual dog. Not to mention the complexity when you get to pomyamory and polygamy.
I yet again concede.
Or just have a judge who finds animus and rules the change illegal.
Shackford actually quoted Patrick Horny?
Fun fact: one-third of all women enjoy butt sex. Didnt you notice in your collection of porn?
Fun fact2: the lower gastrointestinal tract is the most innervated region of the body, cuz when you gotta go, you need to go
meh. how many women (NB: Im not a biologist) think youre anything but gross, disgusting and unsanitary?
just tell me privately on here so that no one else hears: you haven’t had carnal knowledge with a woman in decades have you?
All sex is disgusting and unsanitary. Do you know how sex works?
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (aof-08) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
———->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. (res-07) Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>>> https://workofferweb24.netlify.app/
Enjoy it or do it to keep men close? Betcha it’s the latter. And that’s kind of repugnant that a woman feels a need to be used in order to secure a guy’s affection because he can’t wait a week for Aunt Flo to go, or 72 hours for ovulation to pass, or must abuse a girl who wants to stay a virgin.
the lower gastrointestinal tract is the most innervated region of the body
“I have shit for brains.” – Yatusabes
Seriously, this isn’t even close to being an any way reasonable factoid.
How do you tell everyone you’re a virgin without saying that you’re a virgin?
Enjoy it or do it to keep men close? Betcha it’s the latter. And that’s kind of repugnant that a woman feels a need to be used in order to secure a guy’s affection because he can’t wait a week for Aunt Flo to go, or 72 hours for ovulation to pass, or must abuse a girl who wants to stay a virgin.