Federal Gay Marriage Bill Returns to Senate for Lame-Duck Session Vote
If passed, same-sex couples wouldn’t need to worry about Supreme Court precedents.

After suspending consideration of a bill that would legally enshrine federal recognition of same-sex marriage in September, Senate supporters yesterday announced they were moving forward again. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) officially filed the Respect for Marriage Act on Monday to start the process of trying to get it passed.
Same-sex marriage recognition is legal across the United States, but it's the result of two Supreme Court decisions: United States v. Windsor from 2013, and Obergefell v. Hodges from 2015. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by then-President Bill Clinton, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed by states. Even though it's unenforceable, it's still currently on the books.
After the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade earlier in the year, the decision raised concerns that any number of past precedents may be at stake. Justice Clarence Thomas openly invited the court to reconsider some past decisions, and among them he specifically mentioned Obergefell.
And so interest grew in passing a new bill that formally struck DOMA from the books for good and replaced it with official federal recognition. The Respect for Marriage Act would require the federal government to legally recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it's legal. Note that it wouldn't require states to legalize same-sex marriage, but it would require states to recognize such marriages from other states if they were legally performed. Some states have their own bans that would likely come back into force if Obergefell were overturned.
The Respect for Marriage Act passed the House in July this year, supported by all the Democrats and 47 Republicans. In order to pass the Senate, the bill needs 10 Republican supporters to avoid the filibuster. This ended up being a problem, because even though a majority of Republican Americans now support same-sex marriage, the party itself is having a bit of an identity crisis, and apparently enough Republican senators weren't willing to step up before the election.
And so, rather than attempting to make it a campaign issue—which could have alienated potential Republican allies—supporters pulled the bill from consideration in the Senate.
But now that the election is over and it seems as though the less culture-war-obsessed Republicans seem to have fared well, the bill's supporters think they can find the 10 Republicans they need.
A group statement from the bill's Senate proponents, Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D–Wis.), Susan Collins (R–Maine), Rob Portman (R–Ohio), Kyrsten Sinema (D–Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (R–N.C.), reads in part, "Through bipartisan collaboration, we've crafted commonsense language to confirm that this legislation fully respects and protects Americans' religious liberties and diverse beliefs, while leaving intact the core mission of the legislation to protect marriage equality. We look forward to this legislation coming to the floor and are confident that this amendment has helped earn the broad, bipartisan support needed to pass our commonsense legislation into law."
The bill has been tweaked to make it more palatable for conservatives. It has a section making it clear that nonprofit religious organizations like churches and similar entities "shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage." It also specifically states that nothing in the act shall be "construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals." So no federal recognition of polygamy is under consideration. Wimps.
As we can see from the bill's Senate proponents, it already has three Republicans on board. We'll see soon if they can grab another seven. And given that dozens of Republicans supported it in the House last time, it seems unlikely that there will be much resistance when it comes time to reconcile the bill in this lame-duck session, even as Republicans prepare to take majority control.
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
Marry Joe Biden
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job (mjd-07) online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
No one really cares about overturning Obergefell other than Thomas regarding substantive due process.
And he wasn't proposing overturning it, he was just mentioning it. A whole lot of fake panic over nothing.
Well, I wasn't trying to flag the comment you're responding to, but I did it by accident.
I would like to think Justice Thomas will inspire his colleagues to take a second look at more of their bad decisions. But I doubt it.
Abortion rights have always been controversial, but gay rights seems to have been added to the realm of "nobody is saying" consensus issues.
If Obergefell v. Hodges was overruled (an unlikely event), any federal law claiming to impose SSM on the States would run into City of Boerne v. Flores (1997). City of Boerne holds that Congress cannot use its authority to protect Constitutional rights to interpret any of those rights differently than SCOTUS.
Note that it wouldn't require states to legalize same-sex marriage, but it would require states to recognize such marriages from other states if they were legally performed.
How would repealing Obergefell affect this? I would think the "full faith and credit" clause would require states to recognize other states' laws on the matter - I thought that sort of thing was settled in 1865.
The Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Clinton in 1996 if I remember correctly) unsettled it. I agree that repealing Obergefell probably wouldn't matter either way but the proposal above would repeal DOMA (at least in part).
Remember all those letters from soldiers in Ken Burns' Civil War saying that if they died at least they'd make it easier for men to marry men and women to marry women?
I thought those letters were regarding abortion. Or something like social justice. I might be wrong.
>>the decision raised concerns that any number of past precedents may be at stake
panic on the streets of London. also why the Slavery to the County with the marriage thing?
Burn down the disco.
Burn baby burn.?
Another article about gay marriage that doesn’t even mention the libertarian view of the issue. I’m starting to notice a trend.
Shackford's a Democrat posing as a LINO.
The libertarian view: the government shouldn’t decide who can and cannot get married unless they are underage/otherwise not able to consent (sorry shrike). However, recognizing that the government is never going to get out of the marriage business, what is recognized in one state must be recognized by all of the states in the union.
Unfortunately that won’t fill a whole blog post.
“Unfortunately that won’t fill a whole blog post.”
I get that. I just wish they included it with the rest of the babble in case there were some young people reading that might be converted to libertarianism if exposed to it.
Supposed, the libertarian/Libertarian view of the issue is that government shouldn't recognize marriage at all.
Oddly enough, this view is only ever mentioned in conjunction with gay folk, even though some 95+% of marriages are made up of opposite-sex couples.
Which does raise the obvious question: do even libertarians/Libertarians care about the "libertarian view of [marriage]"? Or does a small sub-set of self-described libertarians/Libertarians just like to complain about gay people?
WHERE MY COUNTRY GONE?
Still gonna have to wait for pedophilia to be legal, but y’all are working on it.
You never had a country, pedo.
BTW, all caps is just not a good look on you, but I've mentioned that before about how it makes you look unhinged and all.
You're too stupid to understand that famous quote.
Since it's coming from you, we all just assume it's you, being you, and being unhinged as usual.
You're too stupid to use quotation marks when you quote.
“Famous”?
It’s because he IS unhinged.
Get the government out of the marriage business entirely
+++
Imagine an ostensibly libertarian magazine pretending the government should have to recognize anybody's marriage.
It would be wonderful, but it will never happen as long as spouses get government freebies.
Social Security is a turrrribul Ponzi scheme, but probably unavoidable since it's how all corporate and government pension schemes work, far as I know.
Still would be nice to have the actual libertarian position mentioned.
That's never going to happen.
Agreed, but since there is now a tangle of laws and rulings on the matter, this is a good way to reduce the mess.
I'd say we're about to find out who the real state's-rights federalists are.
And in the least important news of the day (or ever)...
This seems like a 1 page bill. "The federal government will recognize same sex marriage" and the normal list of sponsors and silly verbiage that goes on the first page of a bill.
How much do you want to bet that Dems put forth a bill with a shitload of unacceptable and irrelevant garbage, just so Republicans can't in good conscience vote for it?
It's better to start a culture war to pretend you're defending rights than to actually resolve a problem.
Surprising! I’ve been making 100 Dollars an hour since I started freelance on the Internet six months ago. I work long hours a day from home and do the basic work that I get from the business I met online. share this work for you opportunity This is definitely the best job I have ever done.
Go to this link............>>> onlinecareer1
Ask the Gov-Gods to bless your relationships.... /s
The concept of Gov-Marriage was a curse from its foundation.
As a matter of fact. I'm not seeing the 'feds' authority to define relationships anywhere in the US Constitution.
I used to think recognizing / allowing gay marriage was so common sensical that only idiots hated the idea. I hoped it would lead to polygamy and group marriage, or better yet, get the government out of the marriage business altogether, even while I knew that last is impossible as long as spouses get so many government freebies.
But this woke crap is too damned much. I'm not going to even try to remember anybody's pronouns, and if someone upbraids for that failure, I will upbraid them for not knowing mine, and then upbraid them for invading my privacy by wanting to know my pronouns; or maybe I will just make up unpronounceable shit and upbraid them for mispronouncing them; and have new ones 5 minutes later and upbraid them for depronouning me and misappropriating my culture for even daring to know my pronouns.
Scott used to be reasonably smart and level-headed. Then he jumped on the gender fluidentity mutilation bandwagon, presumably still objecting to native female genital mutilation.
Fuck that noise. If that's where recognition of gay marriage leads, fuck that too. Sorry you don't get a piece of government paper recognizing who you sleep with, but not mutilating kids outweighs your pieces of paper.
Sounds like you’re gearing up for a lot of braiding, one way or the other.
Shackford was never reasonable on LGBT issues. He originally was all for local ordinances requiring private businesses to allow trans people to use opposite sex bathrooms until he got called out for the property rights issue.
oh no. Bad news. GOP is catching on.
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie received huge applause at an annual meeting of Republican governors Tuesday morning after blaming former President Trump for GOP failures in the last three elections, according to three sources in the room and a fourth person familiar with the speech.
Why it matters: The chorus of Republican office-holders calling for the GOP to move on from Trump is growing louder, driving the party to the brink of civil war just as the former president prepares to announce his 2024 comeback bid.
Driving the news: Christie addressed a room full of hundreds of people — Republican governors, high-level donors and consultants — at a hotel in Orlando, less than 200 miles north from the Mar-a-Lago resort where Trump is expected to make his announcement Tuesday night.
Christie, a former Trump ally who is now considering his own 2024 presidential campaign, said voters "rejected crazy" in the 2022 midterms and that Republicans lost because of bad candidates.
Axios
That must be giving you a raging clue.
The GOPe still doesn't like Trump, news at eleven!
The Monster Who Ate New Jersey is low on juice.
I seem to have accidentally flagged a couple of comments for review, but on the plus side, nobody pays attention to those flags anyway. I'm sorry for whatever button I inadvertently pressed.
If they were Buttplug's, no one takes them seriously anyway.
Spamflagging doesn't actually do anything. I use it as a "hide post" feature whenever Sqrlsy gets spammy with the copypasta.
OK, assuming you're a left-libertarian who wants to reduce the government's power.
If you're going to promote a gay marriage bill, shouldn't you at least have it made crystal clear that private entities - whether they're nonprofit or not, whether they're religious or not - get to *decide for themselves* whether to help people get gay-married?
But this particular bill (based on the summary released so far) leaves it ambiguous whether small businesses, run for profit (gasp!) get to decide whether to help in same-sex ceremonies. Well, that's OK, because those small businesses are just running-dog capitalists anyway.
"assuming you’re a left-libertarian who wants to reduce the government’s power."
Ha!
Yeah, it's almost like loading down this simple bill with new special carve-outs to non-discrimination law would be a poison pill or something.
You enjoy that, gay people.
What does everybody have against polygamy?
Live free or die.
To be an exclusive club someone has to be excluded.
can't we just keep it as an orgy?
I mean, the Sister-Wives guy seems like a real piece of work, and he's the #1 publicly visible polygamist in America, so I'm gonna guess "exposure to detestable polygamists and lack of exposure to moral polygamists".
Or to put it another way... it's much easier to think polygamists are creepy shady folks when your only exposure to them is as villains on TV. If they want to change this perception, they'll have to take Harvey Milk's approach: "come out, come out, wherever you are". But unless the polygamist community has a catalyzing event similar to the AIDS crisis for gay folk, it seems unlikely they'll take that plunge.
"The U.S. marshals are here. They expect to see that cake produced within the hour."
In the name of equity, Gay marriage must be mandated.
Political power play and nothing more. It's all about getting votes and maximizing power.
Marriage should be a religious and/or civil matter.
... I'm sorry, but what do you think you said when you said that marriage should be a "civil matter"?
I guess requiring the Federal government to recognize the laws of the States where they don’t violate the U.S. Constitution is generally a good thing, but there should be no need for the Federal government to recognize marriages in the first place. Federal government agencies have no business providing benefits to married people that they don’t provide to unmarried people. Even employment benefits for government employees should not discriminate against single people or married people.
Check out the early 2000s depiction of gay men in the photo.
If they really want to portray diversity, one of them should be a woman.
Lol
Surprising! I’ve been making 100 Dollars an hour since I started freelance on the Internet six months ago. I work long hours a day from home and do the basic work that I get from the business I met online. share this work for you opportunity This is definitely the best job I have ever done.
Go to this link............>>> onlinecareer1
Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Big-Government Enforcement Of Superstition-Based Bigotry, convened as usual at a gathering place for disaffected, faux libertarian, right-wing culture war casualties.
Funny how it's faux libertarian, left-wing "social justice" warriors insisting their Superstition-Based Bigotry RULES... i.e. Use Gov-GUNS and force everyone to recognize our poop-hole poking marriage (a term legally used historically to represent offspring/family) of which nature itself must be bigoted against.
Frankly; It's a term that should've never been used in legislation. Government should've never been put in the position to mark status symbols on relationships.
But at the heart of the problem is [WE] gang-ing-up Gov-GUN RULES governing taking over the USA founded on a Supreme Law over government that was written to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all via small-scoped LIMITED government.
Yet leftards favorite tyrannical game is attempting to turn every right into an entitlement. A mistake or not; there is no inherent right to get a Gov-Marriage certificate (Gov-Symbolic recognition).
The only thing 'supporters' of Gay-Marriage are doing is using Gov-GUNS to force everyone to recognize them. (i.e. FORCED entitlement).
Summary.... If the left wasn't the one's making 'culture war' casualties it would be the left trying to put down the Gov-GUNS demanding a particular 'culture war'. Yet their goal isn't to end 'culture wars'. Their goal is to WIN the 'culture war' thus creating the casualties.
Summary 2....
"I'm a thug who likes to run around with my 9MM(i.e. Gov-GUNS) pointing it at people insisting they respect my marriage..."
It's always the same bottom-line in leftard theology.. GUNS fix everything. [WE] gangs RULE the nation.
We are neglecting the cherished libertarian principle that I have an individual right to use the government to deny you rights.
There's no inherent right to a Gov-Granted symbol.
But I fully expected you to be one of the many trying to turn a right into an entitlement.
So please clarify your intent and proclaim healthcare is a right again.
We can make anything a right we want. That's what freedom means.
[WE] gangs of the hood packing GUNS is freedom?
Salonul de masaj erotic tantric Vip-Zone din București, cu 17 ani experienta. Deținem 12 posturi de masaj în 8 camere și un mic day/night club. Locuri de parcare. Servicii: dus inițial și final, asistate (la cerere), masaj de relaxare, masaj body to body, masaj tantric, masaj erotic, două senzații VIP. Tehnici erotice/tantrice: cu clavicula, cu abdomenul, cu picioarele, cu sanii, lingam masaj , săruturi, șoapte. Permisivitatea maseuzei: diferite roluri, mangaieri pe tot corpul, mângâieri orgasmice, sarutări pe tot corpul, acceptă jucării, GFE. Servicii opționale: masaj 4 mâini, masaj cupluri, masaj yoni, masaj BDSM, masaj prostată. Servicii outcall: masaj erotic la hotel, masaj erotic la domiciliu, companie la evenimente. Va asteptam! https://www.google.ro/maps?cid=12234023169331479134
" Justice Clarence Thomas openly invited the court to reconsider some past decisions, and among them he specifically mentioned Obergefell."
Relying on poor legal reasoning to force your values on the entire country by judicial fiat can be rather unreliable.
"to force your values on the entire country"
Perhaps the whole point of the USA was Individualism not Collectivism.
To ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
Which is why, of course, Thomas voted against sodomy laws.
Wait, no. He's not for my liberty, just the liberty of people to lock me up.